I will do this from the Marxist standpoint so that even the true believer may hear.
Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership and control of the means of production, primarily by capitalists and the petty bourgeoisie. The majority of people, lacking direct access to productive property, must sell their labor for the wages they need to meet their needs and wants. Welfare provisions, social safety nets, or other public functions do not alter the fundamental structure of capitalism—wage labor and private capital remain central. Indeed, such provisions and nets are designed to keep at bay the socialist revolutionary. Neither are fire departments nor the war departments socialist institutions.
Socialism is a system in which the means of production are, at least in principle, collectively owned and controlled—either directly by workers in their enterprises or indirectly through a state and an army of bureaucrats that purports to act in the interests of the working class (a situation of which one should always be suspicious). The goal of socialism is to subordinate capital to labor and to distribute the social product/surplus more equitably. Do I need to mention that the character of state control and whether it truly represents worker interests is historically and theoretically contested? Looking at unfolding events, I suppose I do.
Communism is a classless, stateless form of social organization in which property is held in common and production guided by the principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” a slogan by Marx that is remarkably similar in spirit to the story of Ananias and Sapphira, which appears in the Book of Acts 5: 1–11 (a story with which I will conclude this essay). Under this imagined situation, coercive institutions of the state become unnecessary because social relations are based on cooperation rather than exploitation, much like it was in the original human society (gatherers and hunters), but on a higher technological plane.
Though theoretically harmonious, the realization of such a system would in practice require a level of social coordination and technocratic control—and a nonorganic moral consensus—that makes it inherently utopian (as in “no place”). It is, therefore, a fanciful paradigm of what Thomas Sowell calls the “unconstrained vision of human nature,” that is, the belief that humanity has no intrinsic nature and is therefore infinitely malleable in the hands of those who would design the perfect society.
If readers aren’t sure they’re understanding what I am conveying here, then I recommend BF Skinner’s Beyond Freedom and Dignity and the utopia he describes there. Or maybe one requires beating over the head with it, in which case I will assign George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. The point is that communism, even in its most optimistic conception, presupposes a coordinating function, i.e., managerial control (what Marx called an “administration of things”), which in practice necessarily requires coercion and hierarchy. But, then, so does state socialism, a fact to which all really-existing socialist systems attest.
I conclude with the fates of Ananias and Sapphira in the New Testament. Making this connection got me in trouble at Middle Tennessee Christian School, which I attended for ninth grade. In Bible Study, we covered the Book of Acts in-depth. Familiar with the book as a child, the semester-long deep dive into scripture, along with my knowledge of Karl Marx, caused me to see a connection I had not seen before.
A bit of background: The first Christian community was founded in Jerusalem by Jesus’s original apostles—Peter, James, John, and the others—shortly after Jesus’s death, decades before the story of Jesus and the first church were written down. The Book of Acts was written by Paul’s companion, Luke, around 80–90 CE. Acts is a theological history that preserves genuine early traditions while shaping them into a narrative of the church’s growth.
The story goes like this:
In the earliest days of the Christian community in Jerusalem, the believers lived in unity, sharing their possessions so that no one lacked anything; those who owned land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds to the apostles, who distributed resources according to each person’s need. This was the first Christian church.
A wealthy man named Ananias and his wife Sapphira sold a piece of property but secretly kept part of the money for themselves while pretending to donate the full amount. When Ananias presented the gift, Peter confronted him for lying not just to the community but to God, and Ananias suddenly collapsed and died. Later, when Sapphira arrived, unaware of what had happened, she repeated the falsehood and likewise fell down dead. (My own view is that things went down differently, a bit more human agency involved, but that’s neither here nor there, I suppose.)
When I told the teacher and my classmates the connection I perceived between communism and the first Christian church, the teacher explained that such an arrangement would be fine as long as Jesus were the dictator. I was then sent out of the room to sit and reflect upon my thoughtcrime on a bench in the hall.
I was wrong, of course. The story of Ananias and Sapphira may seem to contradict the Christian emphasis on individual freedom, conscience, and salvation by personal faith. However, the focus is not on denying personal freedom or property rights, but on deception. In the narrative, Peter makes clear that the couple was under no obligation to sell their land or donate the full proceeds; their property remained their own. The problem was not withholding money but lying about it, betraying the trust of a community that was, at that early stage, practicing voluntary communal sharing under unique circumstances (remember, followers expected Christ’s imminent return).
Thus, as I would later come to understand, rather than prescribing communal ownership for all Christians, the passage serves as a moral warning about hypocrisy during a formative and spiritually intense moment in the life of the church. Early Christianity affirms individual conscience, personal faith, and voluntary generosity, but it also stresses honesty and responsibility within the community. The story highlights the seriousness of violating that trust, not a rejection of individual freedom.
It would have been useful for the teacher to have corrected my error so that students could learn about individualism and voluntarism in Christianity. Instead, he appeared to lack an understanding of Christianity sufficient to take advantage of a teachable moment, and my error—and his ignorance—resulted in students hearing that day that the first Christian church was an instantiation of communism. Whatever else the first church was, it wasn’t that; communism in Marx’s conception is the stage of human development that socialism prepares, and socialism is not a voluntary condition.
freedom and reason 