SpeakFreely: I’m joined today by Lawrence Reed, former President Emeritus of the Foundation for Economic Education, where he spent decades inspiring young people and individuals all over the world about free markets, individualism, and entrepreneurship. Reed has written nearly 2,000 columns and articles in magazines and newspapers in the US and abroad, an astounding number, including pieces for The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Examiner, USA Today, and many others. He has also written and co-written eight books.
Today we’re going to talk about his most recent one: Was Jesus a Socialist?
I think it was Tom Ellis, who played Lucifer in the Netflix show of the same name, who said something like: “Love thy neighbor, feed the poor, sounds terribly socialist, doesn’t it?” That echoes a fairly widespread sentiment that Jesus, or at least his message, was socialist. Yet your latest book gives the opposite answer. Why is Jesus not a socialist?
LR: Well, thank you, Ian, for this opportunity. I appreciate it very much.
Of course, it all depends on how you define socialism. Some people seem to think socialism simply means helping people, giving them things, or doing things for them. But socialism, at its essence, is the use of force, the concentration of political power and economic power in the hands of the state for various purposes, such as the redistribution of wealth, government ownership of the means of production, or central planning of the economy.
The bottom line is that socialism is force. Jesus was not a socialist because he never advocated turning anything over to the state. He never said the way to help the poor is to ask politicians to do it. If he came back today and asked an audience, “What did you do for the poor?” and someone raised a hand and said, “Oh, I voted for politicians who said they would take care of that,” I think Jesus would be very disappointed.
He did not advocate robbing Peter to pay Paul. Rather, he advocated charity through the goodness of our hearts and through individual, voluntary action, not the use of state coercion.
SF: Do you think that one of the central myths behind this whole idea is that Marxists have a monopoly on compassion, that they alone care about the poor, that they alone are loving in this sense?
LR: Yes. There’s a lot of sentiment out there suggesting that Marxists are the most sympathetic to the poor because they talk so much about them. But you don’t help the poor just by talking. You help them through the production of wealth, not through the confiscation of wealth, which only reduces the incentive to create it in the first place. What really helps is giving all people the opportunity to create wealth and enjoy the fruits of their production.
If you look at the fruits of Marxism, you see very little compassion. You see misery, poverty, concentration of political power, and the use of force by government for all sorts of things. That doesn’t look very Christian to me at all.
SF: In your book, you mention many parables Jesus taught. One of them is the parable of the workers in the vineyard. What does that tell us about Jesus’s approach to capitalism?
LR: It’s a very interesting parable because it has, of course, spiritual content, but it also has economic content. It’s one of nearly forty parables Jesus told.
According to the story, a man hires workers and says, “We’ve got to bring the grapes in. If you work all day, I’ll give you each a denarius,” which was a coin of the time. Around noon, he realizes he needs more workers, so he hires more and says, “If you work the rest of the day, I’ll give you a denarius.” Then very late in the day, with perhaps only an hour or less of light remaining, he hires still more workers and tells them, “If you work an hour for me, I’ll give you a denarius.”
At the end of the day, the workers assemble, and some of those who had worked all day are angry. They say, “I worked all day and I get the same as the guy you hired for only an hour.” And the vineyard owner responds, in effect: “It’s my money. Didn’t I do what I promised? Didn’t I give you what we agreed to?”
In other words, the parable endorses private property, voluntary contract, and the sanctity of contract. It also probably reflects supply and demand, because presumably to get that last group of workers out there for only an hour, workers who may already have worked elsewhere during the day, he had to pay them effectively more to get them to come. So there’s nothing socialist about the parable of the workers in the vineyard.
SF: It sounds almost like Jesus completely demolishes the labor theory of value there.
LR: Yes, absolutely. They work so little and yet are paid the same.
SF: In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus famously says: “Any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.” Do you find Jesus’s approach to money worrying at all? I’m reminded of Ayn Rand when she said, “Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another; their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.”
LR:As a free-market economist who believes in private property, there’s nothing that Jesus says that bothers me or seems to run counter to the idea of private property and free markets.
You have to understand who Jesus is talking to when he says, “Sell everything and follow me as my disciples.” He’s not giving a command meant to apply to all people for all time. He’s not saying this is how everyone should live. He’s saying: if you want to be part of my select few, my closest followers, as we build this new faith in hostile territory, then this is a condition.
Why would he say that? Well, if he had said, “You can keep your job, keep your wealth, and still be one of my disciples,” then he would have opened the door to criticism; people saying, “That guy doesn’t really follow him; he’s more interested in his wealth,” or “These people are just in it for the money.”
Jesus wanted there to be no valid criticism of his teaching based on the personal interests of his disciples. So he’s not giving a universal command. That would run counter to everything else he says in the New Testament.
SF: Another famous story is the one where a rich young man comes to Jesus, and Jesus again tells him to sell everything and follow him. In your book, you mention an interesting detail: that this young man was most likely someone participating in the Roman authorities; he was a ruler, part of the state. What does that tell us about Jesus’s relationship with the Roman state?
LR:It could well mean that Jesus did not think being associated with the Roman state, perhaps any state, meant that your hands were clean. I think he may have been saying, “We don’t want to be part of that. I’m calling you out from that to higher and loftier objectives.”
But Jesus also knew the man’s heart. When he said, “Oh, you want to be part of my inner circle? Then sell your belongings,” he knew the man would not do it. He’s the Son of God; he knew ahead of time. So why expose that? He wanted the man to realize that he was not qualified, that he was not prepared to truly follow Jesus because he had higher priorities, such as the accumulation of wealth.
But Jesus never advocated against wealth as such. When people approached him and said, in effect, “Will you take from someone else and give to me?”, for example, in the inheritance dispute in Luke, he warned against covetousness. He would not redistribute wealth at someone’s request.
There’s even the parable of the prodigal son: one son is given everything by his father, goes away, wastes it, and then returns and the father takes him back despite all the wrongdoing. So Jesus was always interested in what was in your heart, not what was in your bank account.
SF: One of the most famous quotes relating to taxation is: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” In your book you write: “Let’s examine Jesus’s words here again. They were: ‘Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.’ Notice that everything depends on what truly belongs to Caesar and what doesn’t.” You suggest that this amounts to a powerful endorsement of property rights.
But I wonder: isn’t Jesus effectively saying that money justly belongs to Caesar if Caesar sets the tax rate at that level? He points to the image of Caesar on the coin, and ties this to the coin effectively belonging to the Caesar. So if the tax rate were 90%, wouldn’t it still be just as much Caesar’s coin as if it were 10%? Wouldn’t that amount to endorsing taxation at all levels?
LR: I don’t think so. That would not be compatible with Jesus’s other teachings. I can’t imagine Jesus saying that whatever Caesar claims is his must therefore be his; even if Caesar wants all of it. What if Caesar says, “I want everything you’ve got, and I’ll put my picture on every coin”? I can’t imagine that being compatible with Jesus’s teachings. I don’t think Jesus was endorsing 90% or 100% taxation simply because Caesar wanted it, regardless of what he wanted to spend it on.
SF: But the relationship seems pretty clear. He shows the coin and says, “Look, this is Caesar on the coin.” It sounds like he is drawing out the idea that Caesar owns all the money because his image is on it.
LR: Jesus doesn’t say, “Because his picture is on the coin, it must be his.” He doesn’t say that. He simply says, “If it is Caesar’s, give it to Caesar.” He leaves it to you to decide whether it truly is Caesar’s. Maybe nothing belongs to Caesar. That would be compatible with Jesus’s teachings.
SF: Another powerful scene is the cleansing of the temple, where Jesus drives out the money changers and merchants. Isn’t that an attack on entrepreneurs who are simply trying to make money and live?
LR: It might seem so if you look at it superficially. Presumably some of those money changers may have been disrupting services. They may have been cheating people; there is reason to think some of that was going on. But in any event, Jesus was saying: this is not the proper place for that.
If he thought that anyone with money was necessarily evil, he would have chased money changers out of every place: marketplaces, banks, and so on. He never did that. He did it only at the temple, which is his way of saying: this is God’s house. This is not the proper place for that activity.
It’s like if you went to someone’s funeral and, during the service, broke out a kazoo and started playing “Happy Days Are Here Again.” Someone would ask you to leave, not because they dislike music, but because it’s not the right place for it. I think that’s what Jesus was doing there.
SF: But it does seem like it was, in a sense, the right place, because they were selling animals for sacrifice and exchanging currency. The coins had Caesar’s image on them, and Jews were not supposed to use graven images in the temple. So if they wanted to donate money to the temple, they needed a special temple currency.
LR: Yes, but that was not a commandment of Jesus. That was a local rule supported by people like the Pharisees, whom Jesus often opposed. My guess is that Jesus didn’t like the notion that access to the temple should be conditioned on money or on buying animals for sacrifice. I think he was much more open than that: this is a place for worship; it’s God’s house. It is not a place to charge people to get in or to require them to buy an animal for sacrificial purposes.
SF: Another important biblical scene for this discussion, especially about property rights and the non-aggression principle is in Mark 5, where Jesus allows demons to enter a herd of swine, and the pigs run into the sea and drown. About 2,000 pigs are lost, and the villagers come and beg Jesus to leave. Wouldn’t that be a breach of property rights?
LR: That’s an interesting perspective. I’m not certain how Jesus would respond if you asked him that directly, but I could imagine him saying that once the demons possessed the pigs, the pigs were no longer truly the property of their supposed owners. The demons had taken them over. In effect, the demons had stolen the pigs. So Jesus destroyed the property, but it had already been taken from the owners.
SF: It’s kind of interesting how exactly property rights apply to creatures such as demons.
LR: Well, they certainly weren’t rewarded by being allowed to keep them. In effect, they were punished by being driven into the sea.
SF: Still, it might have seemed better to refuse the demons’ request and let the people keep their pigs. Let’s go a bit into the Old Testament. In one of the most fascinating passages in the Bible, 1 Samuel 8, the Israelites demand a king, and Samuel, under God’s guidance, warns them about the tyranny centralized power would bring. Many Christian anarchists have used that passage to argue for anarcho-capitalism. Do you think there is a convincing or at least interesting scriptural case for anarchy?
LR: Yes, I think there is. At no point does Jesus say there is a proper level of taxation by government. He leaves those matters to us to decide. And in the case of Samuel’s warning to the Israelites, Samuel proved exactly right, didn’t he? He said the king would take your sons and send them to war, and he would take your money and that is exactly what the king did. Saul was the first, and I think many Israelites later regretted what he became.
So yes, I think you can make a case. I don’t personally make it, because I’m a limited-government person (very small government). But I’ve never thought our anarchist friends were the enemy. I’ve always thought: if we ever get government down to where it is no bigger than I want, I’ll be happy to talk with you about what’s left. Maybe I’ll agree with you.
SF: That’s of course only one side of the complex relationship between religion and the state. But there’s also the other side, which is increasingly visible at the moment within the MAGA movement: the resurgence of Christian nationalism. What do you think of that?
LR: Well, I do believe in nations. In hindsight, the fact that nations exist has an upside, which is that nations sometimes fight for their freedom, and when they do, that can be a good thing for humankind.
But the notion that just because you are a nation, you are somehow automatically superior to others, that can become harmful and destructive. You can take anything, including nationalism, to a dangerous extreme. There’s nothing wrong with cohesiveness among people who share common interests, but they should not take it to the point of imposing their way of life on others or believing themselves superior simply because they are a nation. It depends on the values they embrace.
SF: In 2023, you were awarded the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland, the highest honor Poland can bestow on a foreigner. What first sparked your interest in Poland, and when did you first visit?
LR: I first visited Poland in 1986, but I had been following events there for years, especially since John Paul II became pope in 1978. I watched the imposition of martial law in December 1981 and was appalled by what I saw. But I was also very grateful that President Reagan was so supportive of the Poles and their fight for freedom.
So finally, in 1986, while the communists were still in power, I decided I wanted to do something more personal to help those resisting the regime. I went to Poland, and during the two weeks I was there, I spent my time with underground people involved in resistance against the communist government. Later I helped raise money for the publication of illegal literature in Poland. I did everything I could from afar.
SF: So in a sense you helped lay the seeds for the later small libertarian movement in Poland.
LR: Well, I hope so. That’s what one member of parliament, elected in 1989, later told me. He said, “You started it,” and I’m happy to accept that. But I give the credit to the Poles, because they were on the front lines. They were fighting the good fight every day in person.
SF: Was it a strange experience, given that much of the movement was led by a trade union, a workers’ movement, not usually the most libertarian sphere? And many of the intellectuals involved were also, in some sense, socialist. Did you have any clashes or memorable discussions about liberty?
LR: Oh, I had phenomenal discussions with people I’ll never forget, for example, Stefan Kisielewski. I think of him almost as a comedian because he was so humorous in the way he opposed the communist regime. I remember asking him to tell me about a recent arrest, because he mentioned he had been arrested many times, sometimes jailed for the weekend or longer.
He said, “Yes, I was recently arrested because I simply said socialism is stupidism.” They threw him in jail. Then he paused and said, “Which only proved my point.”
He was an example of someone who was very critical of socialism. I also remember speaking with Ryszard Legutko, who may have been a bit more sympathetic to a left perspective, so we had some interesting disagreements, though nothing major. But most of the time on that visit, I was with people who thought of themselves either as libertarians or at least strongly pro-freedom, so I didn’t have serious disagreements with them.
SF: What was your experience with President Duda when you received the Order? You got to meet the Polish president, but he comes from a ruling party that has overseen many quite socialist reforms in Poland. How was that experience?
LR: He was very gracious, I have to say, very friendly. But we never really had an opportunity to discuss ideas. I had gone there with a statement I wanted to give him, but it wasn’t part of the program, so I had to give it to him in writing.
My interaction with him was brief, when he presented the award at Belweder Palace, and then later that afternoon at the presidential residence where he and his wife were. But there were so many other people present that we never really had a chance to talk.
SF: So you didn’t get the chance to bring him over to our side.
LR: I wish I’d had some time. But I do appreciate the fact that he was very gracious, and of course the award is a great honor.
SF: You’re one of the few Americans who know many countries well, and take a deep interest in places like Poland and others around the world. So I want to ask: what country do you think could be the next Argentina for the liberty movement? Is there somewhere you see liberty ideas really taking root?
LR: Well, until you mentioned Argentina, I was going to mention Argentina, because I’m very excited about what’s happening there.
I’m also very hopeful for Brazil. Even though at the moment they’re back under a bad government, I think the popularity of the current president is very poor, and Brazil has a chance, if the right person arises to restore liberty after the next election.
The seeds of the Brazilian libertarian movement have been sown extensively. It’s a very broad libertarian network. So I just hope they’ll bounce back and perhaps produce a Milei-type leader after the next election.
SF: Let’s hope so. Thank you very much.
LR: Thank you, Ian. My pleasure.
Inspired by our interview Larry has since written a longer piece on the very topic of Mark 5 and the drowned heard of swine. Give it a read!
Not a cent from the state, ever. Keep us stubborn. Donate today!
