Zachary Peters

In an incredibly strange twist, a Muslim socialist, an oxymoronic combination to be discussed below, is now the mayor of the financial capital of the U.S., New York City. Thankfully, I do not live in that city or near that city. That does not mean I am not concerned; so, the morning after, I found myself thinking through this event. First, it made me think about socialism and Communism, for they are not just cousin-philosophies but blood-brothers. Have any socialist or communist governments produced, in the short or long term, any success? Spoiler, mostly not. Have they been beneficial or detrimental to the people trapped in those systems? Again, a bit of a spoiler, mostly no. How might these systems fit in scripture? Because of the short attention span of readers these days, without qualification, the answer to that last question, in a strict sense, is not very well. Then, beyond those questions, how is it that a Muslim can be a socialist? This question leads me to an overextension in my knowledge, but I do have some idea about it. Those two things cannot mix. If one is to take seriously the tenets of socialism or the tenets of Islam, one cannot hang onto both at the same time. If you stop there, because you do not have time to read, or trust me enough to accept these things without further review, that is wonderful. Yet, I will expand on this briefly below.

The first place I think I should start is by saying that socialism (and Communism) are terms often used without a clear understanding of what they entail. Socialism: “a stage of society in Marxist theory that is transitional between capitalism and communism and is distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.” Communism: “a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production.” And “a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably.” These are fancy ways of saying you cannot own anything unless the state lets you own it. The state is your parent who decides what you need and when you need it.

The next thing that is helpful to realize is that, to varying degrees, rarely is anyone practicing 100% socialism or Communism in a perfectly technical way, ascribing perfectly to academic ideas. Life is sloppy, and what works in the immaculate vacuum of the hypothetical or theoretical quickly falls apart in some way when exposed to the human condition. This is also true for democracy and republicanism, which I am a huge fan of, by the way.

The above is why, when we examine historical examples of socialism or Communism, we often see them implemented in technically imperfect ways. In fact, many proponents of those systems point to that historical reality as a hope that next time it will be different. “Maybe next time,” they say, “we will get it closer to what Owen or Marx described.” They eagerly scream as they burn the history books, hoping that no one remembers the last failure. To all that I say, impossible, but also, even in perfection, the systems are broken and devoid of usefulness. 

Socialism and Communism are dehumanizing systems that make man, particularly the state, a collection people, god and lord of all. All must bow to that imperfect god, sacrificing work, life, uniqueness, and resources to that god. Like worshiping any false man-made god, it leads to human devastation on a practical and spiritual level. They can dress up this idol worship with the common good, social justice, and the motherland, but it is still akin to pagan idol worship. Scream, dance, sacrifice, and cry all they want, but, like the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel, the socialists and communists are crying out to nothing.

Practical examples abound. The Russian Revolution, a bloody move from the antiquated monarchy to the new and shiny Communism, produced millions of deaths; exact numbers vary, but “in the millions” is accurate enough. Stalin likely killed millions directly and indirectly while enacting his communist policies. Was the sacrifice worth it? Did Communism usher in a utopia for the common people of Russia? Was the blood sacrifice enough to get the gods to rain down blessings? No, the Soviet Union struggled to keep up in almost every metric that matters, and the people suffered while select few reaped the rewards.

China, another socialist/communist nation, remains in power, which seems to indicate some success in implementing those policies and philosophies. That is, if we ignore the Maoist revolution that killed millions in the 1940s, the land reforms that killed millions, and the Cultural Revolution that also killed millions. Let us also ignore the one-child policy that saw apocalyptic numbers of babies aborted or tossed out to die (400 million, more than the population of the U.S.). Yes, horrible, but now they are quickly overtaking the world in all the economic metrics, say proponents of socialism. Close one eye to catastrophic genocide and rampant murder, and it all looks like it is working. Yes, they essentially have slave labor. They still kill or imprison anyone who disagrees with them. The citizens have no rights, and though plenty luck into some success, the vast majority live at the whim of the god that is the state. 

North Korea, I mean, what is there to say about their glorious revolution? The citizens are enslaved. The leaders are viewed as a god, and the population is starving.

Great Britain, let’s ask what happened to car manufacturing in the U.K. when socialism and Communism got involved? The short answer is nothing good. What about other socialist policies enacted by various U.K. governments over the decades? Well, there is no true free speech anymore. There is no way to defend oneself. Taxes drain the wealth from individuals and families to pay for social programs that barely work and perpetuate a mediocracy that is abominable. Everything seems to have some convoluted bureaucracy attached to it, allowing the state to exert control.

There are socialism-inspired policies in other parts of Europe and even the U.S. These policies, many of which have functioned helpfully for some time, can be thrown into disarray with little effort (say, an influx of immigrants who do not share the same values as the country they have immigrated to). Many of these policies act as a safety net for those who fall through the cracks of a materialist and capitalist society. An honest fault of capitalism. Sure, good idea. Does it work? No.

At least in the U.S., many of the safety net policies are poorly managed, thus any money they take in taxes to operate is misappropriated, and then that creates complaints that they need more money to waste. Many, NOT ALL, of the people who manage to fall into the socialist safety net, stay there. It is a welfare class. They do not seek reemployment, and they do not regain their footing. There is no reason for them to do that. 

This was, in fact, one of the fears of many of the authors of New Deal policies in the 1930s; yet, FDR forced these policies through despite real concerns expressed by the experts he gathered to create the policies for the struggling U.S. economy. By the way, the New Deal, laced with socialism, did not work. It did not drag the U.S. out of the Great Depression. It did not encourage growth. The U.S. economy and job market did not recover until industrial demand spiked leading up to WWII.

Now, years later, we have these socialist policies that drain tax dollars and take money out of the pockets of individuals who could use it to pay for housing, save for college, start a business, and buy goods.

The ultimate nail in the coffin of Communism and socialism is spiritual in nature. There is one God. We are made in the image of that God. Life and value are born out of God and our relationship to that God. Socialism and Communism seek to replace all of that with the state. It simply does not work on a spiritual level. 

While the call to take care of each other is ingrained in the Bible, Old and New Testament, it comes from a place of love and service. If a group of Christians, as is described some in the book of Acts, want to come together and share all things, they are doing that in their will and with their own resources. They are not doing it in service to the state or in compliance with the state. There is a significant psychological difference between the two for humans.

The reason that republicanism/democracy works so well in conjunction with capitalism, is that it leaves room for individuals to be individuals. It does not force adherence. It does not, even on a technical level, want to make something else God. A Christian, and all the most important leaders of our great nation were Christian or at least moral Christians, can be led by God to be wise, work hard, be kind, and pursue personal excellence.

Of course, things go wrong with democracy and capitalism, but less wrong than socialism or Communism. People can make a political party or money a god, but they do not have to do so. There is free will and liberty. There are rights passed on to us by the value God has created in humanity. All of that is voided in socialism and Communism, which is why it is wild that a self-proclaimed socialist was just elected mayor of a major city. I don’t have high hopes for that city.

That mayor, one Zohran Mamdani, is a socialist Muslim. I do not want to spend too much time on this, but those two things mix like oil and water. Either he is not a very good socialist, or he is not a very good Muslim. Most likely, he is a good Muslim that is enabled by law to lie in order to advance an agenda. Socialism is by its nature atheistic, so something is clearly wrong here.

There is also a very strange aesthetic to this happening in a city so impacted by Islamic terrorists not so long ago. I know there is such a thing, just like in Christianity, as cultural Islam. People who call themselves Islamic, but do not practice anything like real Islam. Maybe that is at play here, but it does not really matter. Islam also has ethnic rings to it unlike Christianity. It is a vastly different worldview. Liberty is valued differently. Freedom is valued differently. Order valued differently. In a strict sense, Muslims have a mission to convert others or conquer them. I say all this to qualify that I think people who voted for him are either very uninformed or very informed.

Zohran Mamdani is either a good socialist or a good Muslim, or somehow bad at both and thus a good politician. None of it bodes well for New York City. Be aware, reject the values of Islam, and reject the values of socialism.