Playing Fair: Defining the Terms We Use
Are we using labels such as "communist," "Marxist," "fascist" and "woke" accurately and fairly?
We’ve all seen this. During a discussion (live or online) about a particular political leader, someone will dismissively identify the person as a “communist,” a “Marxist” or a “fascist.” (Sometimes all three!) When a Christian shows concern for any kind of social justice issue, they’re inevitably labeled as “woke.” How concerned should we be with the truthfulness of such accusations? Well, that depends on how concerned we are about being faithful to God and obedient to his Word!
The Bible has a lot to say about us passing on harmful, untrue accusations—all of it bad. It’s clear from Scripture that God detests slander. He made one of Israel’s Ten Commandments: “You must not testify falsely against your neighbor [Exodus 20:16].” It would take a very long article to list all the biblical passages warning us not to slander anyone, or those that include slander along with the most heinous sins. Here’s one Scripture, just for an example:
You must not pass along false rumors. You must not cooperate with evil people by lying on the witness stand. You must not follow the crowd in doing wrong.
Exodus 23:1-2
So the question for us isn’t “what are people saying?” but “what is true?” Neither is this a question of partisan politics. Political loyalty should have nothing to do with this (unless you place such loyalty above the truth). As we’ve discussed before (here and here), we need to be scrupulously committed to seeking what is actually true, and quick to push back against any false accusations—especially from our side.
This means we need to not only be familiar with the person in question (really familiar with them, not just what my side is saying about them), we need to be familiar with these concepts. What does it really mean to say someone is a communist or a Marxist or a fascist? If we’re going to be faithful followers of Jesus, we need to make sure anything we say of someone—especially our political enemies—is absolutely accurate, truthful and fair. So let’s take some time to make sure we really understand what these terms mean and the nuances of difference between them. Now, whole books have been written describing these groups, so this post will have to be a fairly brief summary of each. Still, we can get a reasonably clear picture of what these are and how they’re distinct. But let’s start with a reality that sometimes confuses people.
The “horseshoe theory”
Picture a horseshoe. I’m sure you’ve seen how the ends of a horseshoe curve inward to the point they’re almost coming together. The idea of the horseshoe theory is that the extreme right politically and the extreme left will often look very much alike. They can—in some ways—be almost indistinguishable. Think of Nazi (fascist) Germany under Hitler and Soviet (communist) Russia under Stalin. It’s easy to see how similar they were in many ways. Does this mean that communism and fascism are the same thing, or that they originate from the same place politically? Absolutely not. But this does show us that any ideology that leads to extreme authoritarianism will, practically speaking, look much the same. It’s the authoritarianism they have in common, not their ideology. This means we need to know more about these ideologies than just a vague recollection of the societies under Hitler or Stalin.
What’s a communist?
A communist is someone who adheres to the ideology of communism. Okay, so what’s communism? The claim of communism (especially the form taught by Karl Marx—hence “Marxist”) is that all the problems of humanity can be traced back to the owning of personal property and the existence of differing classes in society. Communists seek to correct this by eliminating all personal property, so everything is communal, owned by the people collectively, made by the people, achieved by the people, etc. This is why there’s often such an emphasis on the “People’s Republic,” etc. For communists, the villains in society have been the bourgeoisie, the small minority of privileged people who own and control everything, who enjoy decadent lifestyles at the expense of the workers who labor for them. The communists feel these workers, the proletariat, must rise up and destroy the power of the privileged bourgeoisie and establish a society of all workers for all workers. This is why you may have heard slogans such as “Workers of the world unite!”
Many early communists were Christians, who saw this ideology as a way to live in loving harmony with their fellow citizens as equal brothers and sisters. Vladimir Lenin adapted Marxist communism to establish a “Soviet” Russia, including the idea of a “dictatorship of the proletariat [or workers].” This led to an authoritarian government in the new Soviet Union, which ironically created a new “bourgeoisie,” a new privileged class made up of the top party leaders, who lived extravagantly off the labors of the Russian workers. A great many early communists eventually became disillusioned with the Soviet Union, viewing it as a betrayal in many ways of communist ideals. Regardless, because of its dominance in much of the world for most of the 20th century, the Soviet Union came to embody what we now think of as communism (along with other communist nations such as China, North Korea and Cuba).
There are a few important characteristics we should note about communism. While communist nations may be dominated for a period of time by a specific powerful leader, communism is built on a detailed ideology. When people are drawn to communism, they’re drawn to communist ideology, including an elimination of personal property, and ongoing class struggle against the powerful elites who are understood to control and exploit the common people. Communism—at least in theory—is intended to transcend national identity, seeking to unite everyone into an eventual workers’ paradise. (The reality has never matched the sales pitch, and countless numbers of people have sacrificed everything to escape their repressive, communist “utopias.”) Communism also intends to (and often does) offer equal opportunities for everyone, including different races and genders.
What’s a socialist?
Is a socialist just another name for a communist? No, it’s not. In the very early days, the two terms were sometimes used synonymously, and this has confused some people. But the meaning of these two words diverged a very long time ago, and using them as if they describe the same beliefs or values is not accurate (or truthful).
So what’s a socialist? Socialism is not a finely-defined ideology in the same way communism is. The socialism of today is a reaction to both the excesses of communism and extreme forms of capitalism (which historically led to a relatively few people getting incredibly rich while paying their workers as little as possible). Socialists don’t advocate an elimination of private property or social classes, and socialists are invariably committed to democratic forms of government. In practice, socialism has been a moderating influence on capitalist societies.
What are some examples of these socialist moderating influences? This would be anything that involves collective ownership or a common distribution of services to all citizens. We’re so familiar with many of these, they’re completely unremarkable. The public owning of the local fire department is technically an example of socialism. (Why aren’t there multiple, competing, privately owned fire-fighting businesses?) In many locations, we have community-owned utilities. This is another example of a certain form of socialism. Public education is another example, not just your local public elementary or high school, but public universities, as well as public libraries. Any aspect of a social safety net, such as Social Security or Medicare, would be an example of socialist influences.
Most citizens would assume it’s the responsibility of the government, often the local government, to provide these kinds of services. Without these socialist influences, ordinary citizens would be at the mercy of the wealthiest business owners, often being kept in poverty by paying exorbitant amounts for what we would understand today to be basic services. (If this sounds preferable to you, read some Dickens!) Many of these influences in our society go back to the same kind of Christian reforms we looked at two weeks ago. Every capitalist, democratic nation is, to some extent, also socialist.
Does that mean we’re all “socialists”?! No, it doesn’t. When people describe themselves as socialists today, they’re almost always seeking a much greater level of public ownership or of providing certain services to all citizens. A clear example would be universal health care, what many would call “socialized medicine.” Imagine a business owner deciding to make all of their employees co-owners of the business. This owner may end up sacrificing some of the profits they could have acquired, but they’re also creating a different level of commitment and participation from the employee/owners (as well as enriching their lives). Some socialists would like to offer governmental incentives to encourage more business owners to offer this kind of arrangement. Other socialists would do this through higher taxes of the wealthy and offering more services as standard for all citizens. Nations that are more socialist still have people who are relatively more wealthy and those who are less, but the difference is not as extreme as it is in nations that are less influenced by socialism.
Hopefully, you can see it’s not accurate or truthful to characterize someone who describes themself as a socialist by calling them a “communist” or a “Marxist.” That would be no more appropriate than calling a libertarian an “anarchist” just because the libertarian wants to limit the role of government. This would be intentionally ignoring very clear differences, and giving someone a label to either insult them or dismiss them (or both). To call libertarians “anarchists,” or to call socialists “communists” or “Marxists” would be slander (unless they’ve very clearly shown through their words and actions they actually do hold the other view in its basic form).
If you’re doing this, as a Christian you must stop. We are not to “pass along false rumors” about people. If someone is a socialist, and you’re opposed to their views, than oppose them fairly and truthfully as a socialist—don’t try to make points by cheating and calling them a “communist” or a “Marxist.” Win by having the better arguments, not by calling people names.
What’s a fascist?
“Fascist” is another word that’s been thrown around a lot lately, and one we need to understand. When we think of fascism, we tend to think of certain fascist leaders instead of a specific ideology. People such as Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini or Francisco Franco immediately come to mind. This isn’t a coincidence. As I mentioned earlier, many people are confused by how similar communism and fascism can be in practice. It’s helpful, though, to understand some of the ways they are very different.
As we saw, communism may be dominated by a party leader, but it’s based on an ideology. Fascism, on the other hand, is always centered on a cult of personality. (This is why thinking of fascism always brings to mind fascist leaders.) There may be certain issues or problems identified by fascist leaders, but these are never permanent ideals embraced by all fascists—even though they may be almost sacred to the people at a particular time and place. While the ideology of communism seeks to transcend all nations with one universal proletariat, fascism is always hyper-nationalist, leading to a frenzied zeal that borders on worship of one’s country, leader, flag, etc. While communism views men and women as fellow comrades, with equal opportunities and duties, fascism has always been hyper-masculine, idealizing masculine power and virility.
Communism is based on class struggle, with the villains always the bourgeoisie or wealthy class. Fascism always seeks a scapegoat, often a different race or religion— enflaming and weaponizing existing prejudices—to explain the problems of a nation at a certain time. “All our problems are because of the ___________ .” Then they’ll demonize and dehumanize this scapegoat people group.
Communism draws people to an ideology, a theory and principles. Fascism is always populist, appealing to ordinary people who feel their concerns are being ignored by cultural elites, and it’s always led by a demagogue. (The best definition I’ve heard for a demagogue is someone who tells an angry and fearful crowd they should be even more angry and fearful!) Finally, communism always develops out of the extreme political left and fascism always develops out of the extreme political right. (This will make even more sense if you read the post two weeks ago.)
So, are Democrats “communists”? No, they’re not, not unless they’re clearly (in their own words) advocating for a complete elimination of private property and any form of social class or elites. Are Democrats socialists? Some are, some aren’t. If you’re being loving and respectful, you’ll find out from the Democrat what their political ideology is, and you won’t call them something they aren’t, just to conveniently dismiss them or win some points in an argument. (Because, remember, it’s not about winning arguments, it’s about—first—doing everything in love, and then seeking truth.)
So, are all Republicans fascists? Absolutely not. Are some Republicans fascists or showing disturbingly fascist tendencies? I would have to say yes. It’s hard to read the description of fascism above, and not see these traits in some elements of the current right wing in America. Please remember, “fascism” doesn’t necessarily mean Nazis. There have been other fascist movements, such as Mussolini’s fascist movement in Italy. So if someone shows concern about people on the right showing fascist tendencies, that doesn’t mean anyone’s calling them Hitler! (And there are people on the right calling themselves fascist or neo-fascist, just as some people on the left call themselves socialist.)
So to call all Republicans fascist is an ignorant, bigoted statement. And to call all Democrats communists or Marxists is also an ignorant, bigoted statement. Even if we vehemently disagree with someone, we need to treat them with respect, and describe their position fairly, accurately and truthfully. If we have to resort to petty games and childish name-calling to win—then we deserve to lose. Christians must never be guilty of slandering anyone. Focus on the substance, not on petty, superficial labels.
What about “woke”?
This is another word that’s become ubiquitous. This word is used routinely when describing politicians, schools and teachers, corporations, organizations, and now even churches and church leaders. So what do we mean by “woke,” and is this a helpful label? The problem with this word is that in some ways it’s saying too much, and in other ways it’s not saying enough.
For many, this is the latest word to describe what used to be known as “bleeding-heart liberals.” We need to make sure we’re not saying more than we should be saying. Do we want to suggest that some people are just too kind-hearted, that they simply need to have harder hearts? Of course not. You can’t square such a sentiment with the biblical picture of Jesus. In the same way, do we want to imply that some people are too awake and alert to what’s going on around them? That, too, would be seriously unbiblical. (See for example 1 Thessalonians 5:4-8.)
How many of us remember racial or gender jokes our parents or grandparents used to tell that would now make us cringe? These are realities to which we’ve become awakened, our awareness has grown. This is the original idea behind being “woke.” Do we really want to suggest it’s better to be completely oblivious to these kinds of sensitivities?
On the other hand, can people become too sensitive? Can they become so obsessed with relatively minor sensitivities—making tiny issues into major ones—that it becomes silly and even absurdly repressive? Of course, they can (and do). Is it inappropriate to call out these kinds of extreme over-sensitivities? No, it’s actually necessary. (Jesus called out the Pharisees for being obsessive in their observance of the law—even tithing a tenth of the herbs from their gardens—but ignoring the larger issues of justice and loving God, Luke 11:42).
So do we want to call out silly and even dangerous extremes? Yes, we do. But do we want to imply there’s something wrong about being tender-hearted, sensitive or alert and awake? No, we don’t. Why do we like so much using words such as “woke” to refer to those we oppose? If we’re honest with ourselves, it can be a signal to others we’re on their side, that we share the same feelings they do about the other side. It’s a form of virtue-signaling. (And, let’s be honest, there’s virtue-signaling on the right just as much as there is on the left. Just as there’s a very active cancel culture on both the left and the right.)
Why can’t we simply say that some view or policy is overly sensitive and out of balance or harmfully impractical? Why do we feel the need to have catchy words and phrases with which to insult or dismiss our political or cultural opponents? If we need to use words such as “Marxist” or “woke” to identify the enemy (and possibly stir up animosity toward them), then we’re on very shaky ground as Christians. This instinct doesn’t seem to fit the character of Christ’s followers we see in Scripture. If you can’t express your opposition without resorting to labels or name-calling—do you really understand just what it is you’re opposing?
Let me ask you a question: Have you ever fired off a comment or post calling people communists or accusing them of being woke—and had them respond to you with a change of heart and mind? Expressing wonder that you helped them see the error of their ways? If not, who are you writing these things for? Certainly not for the people who will only be annoyed and then just ignore you. Then . . . for whom? Isn’t this to get the approval of the people already on your side?
If you really want to engage people on the other side, wouldn’t it be better to have an approach much more like the apostle Paul (Acts 17:16-34)? Wouldn’t you have more chance of genuinely causing someone to consider your points if you began with something like: “I agree with your desire to be caring and sensitive to the needs of others, to be truly aware of what’s going on around us. I think that’s a very good approach. But let me share with you why I feel this policy we’re discussing is actually misguided and will end up harming the people you want to help.” Can you see how someone might actually listen and consider this, rather than just being told how ridiculous they are for being so “woke” or for supporting “Marxists”? What is it that we’re actually wanting to accomplish? Do we want to meaningfully engage people . . . or just vent?
Maybe it’s time we go back to the Scriptures:
Live wisely among those who are not believers, and make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be gracious and attractive so that you will have the right response for everyone.
Colossians 4:5-6
A servant of the Lord must not quarrel but must be kind to everyone, be able to teach, and be patient with difficult people.
2 Timothy 2:24
So don’t be looking for clever labels to insult your political opponents or to conveniently dismiss them. If these are our motives, then we know there’s something wrong. Focus on real substance. And don’t accuse someone of being a communist, Marxist, fascist, or anything else unless you’re very clear what it actually means to be these things, and you’re certain the person in question truly holds these beliefs. Don’t be guilty of slander, of accusing somebody of being something they’re not. Don’t pass on an accusation or label if you don’t know for sure whether it’s accurate or not. We must people of truth. Always.
Related posts:
Discussing Politics in Church?
What Is Christian Nationalism, and Why Is It So Dangerous?
What Does Christian Character Look Like?
Was Jesus a Conservative or a Progressive?
We All Hate How Polarized We’ve Become . . . So What Are We Doing About It?
Thanks, James!
Thank you for the wisdom and insight. Good tools for future and current practice.