The Government's support of artificial high prices also had another destructive influence. It encouraged customers to look around for substitute products or foreign imports. As a result, American farmers not only lost some of their domestic markets, but found they were unable to compete abroad.
What happened to wheat also happened to cotton and the other "basic crops." They lost markets everywhere. In the case of cotton the government reduced acreage from 43 million acres to 17.4 million. Still the surplus quantities continued to climb. Before controls, U.S. cotton farmers exported 7 million bales of cotton per year. During 1955 they sold only 2 million bales abroad. Foreign cotton growers saw what was happening and doubled their sales because U.S. cotton brokers could not compete. So it was with all controlled areas of U.S. agriculture.
In contrast to this, we find that those areas of agriculture which resisted rigid price guarantees did better. Take soybean farming as an example. These producers used the Department of Agriculture to advise and counsel them but not to control. The Department of Agriculture conducted numerous experiments to reveal new uses for soybeans and encouraged producers to use cooperative associations for the exploring of new markets. Today, soybean farmers supply half the tonnage for high protein feeds -- twice as much as that which comes from cottonseed meal. Soybeans have risen to fifth place as the farmer's greatest source of farm income.
Secretary Benson closes with this significant comment: "A major difference between cotton and soybeans is the fact that cotton decided to fight its battles in the legislative halls, while soybeans decided to fight in the market place." These are merely a few highlights from the lessons which America should have learned during the past twenty-five years of experimentation with socialized agriculture. There are many things which the Government can do to encourage the "general welfare" of all agriculture as it did with soybeans, but to try to control prices by Washington edicts rather than by supply and demand in the market place proves to be the kiss of death for the handsome goose that lays the golden eggs of American free enterprise prosperity.
It is time to sell ourselves on our own economic program so we can more effectively share it with the rest of the world. We have a great system which is operating with demonstrable efficiency. Here is a summary of what it is doing:
1. Capitalism is by far the best known system to provide for the physical needs of man.
2. Capitalism permits man to satisfy his spiritual needs.
3. Capitalism allows for variation as between individuals.
4. Capitalism is naturally self-expanding which tends to create strong economic ties between communities, states and nations.
5. Capitalism can permit everyone to participate in making a profit, thereby eliminating classes or castes which are inherent in so many other types of economies.
6. Capitalism promotes the "freedom to try."
7. Capitalism allows the "freedom to sell."
8. Capitalism allows the "freedom to buy."
9. Capitalism preserves the greatest single force of human motivation -- the risk of failing.
10. Capitalism tends to increase the wages of workers in relation to prices.
11. Capitalism tends to reduce the hours of work necessary to make a living.
12. Capitalism increases the workers' share of the national income.
13. Capitalism increases the number of jobs faster than the growth of population.
14. Capitalism promotes rapid technological advances.
15. Capitalism is proving to be the most effective means mankind has yet discovered for "sharing the wealth."
Appendix D
Did the Early Christians Practice Communism?
A few students have secretly or even openly defended Communism because they considered it to be an important set of principles practiced by the early Christians. Such persons often say that they definitely do not condone the ruthlessness of Communism as presently practiced in Russia, but that they do consider it to be of Christian origin and morally sound when practiced on a "brotherhood basis."
This was exactly the attitude of the Pilgrim Fathers when they undertook to practice Communism immediately after their arrival in the New World. But as we have seen earlier, not only did the project fail miserably, but it was typical of hundreds of other attempts to make Communism work on a "brotherhood basis." Without exception all of them failed. One cannot help wondering why.
Certain scholars feel they have verified what Governor Bradford has said concerning "brotherhood Communism," namely, that it is un-Christian and immoral because it strikes at the very roots of human liberty. Communism -- even on a brotherhood basis can only be set up under a dictatorship administered within the framework of force or fear. Governor Bradford found this to be true. Leaders own literally hundreds of similar experiments concur. Students are therefore returning to ancient texts with this question: "Did the early Christians really practice Communism?"
The belief that the early Christians may have practiced Communism is based on two passages. Here is the first one:
"And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men as every man had need."1
Two things might be noted here. First, the people formed a community effort by coming together; second, they sold their possessions and goods as they appeared to need cash proceeds for the assistance of their fellow members. It does not say that they sold all their possessions and goods although it is granted that at first reading this may be inferred. Neither does it say that they pooled their resources in a common fund although this has been assumed from the statement that they "had all things common."
What they actually did is more clearly stated in the second passage which is often quoted:
"And the multitude of them that believed was of one heart and of one soul; neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common."2
Here we have a declaration indicating that the common effort was not a legal pooling of resources in a communal fund but rather a feeling of unity in dealing with common problems so that no man "said" his possessions were his own but developed and used them in such a way that they would fill the needs of the group as well as himself.
That this is a correct reading of this passage may be verified by events which are described in the next chapter of Acts. There we read of Ananias and Sapphira. They had a piece of property which they decided to sell. They intended to give the proceeds to the Apostle Peter. But the author of Acts says that when they had sold the property they decided to hold back some of the proceeds even though they represented to Peter that their contribution was the entire value of the property received at the sale. For this deceit Peter severely criticized them and then, in the process, he explained the legal relationship existing between these two people and their property. Said he, "While it (the property) remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it (the money) not in thine power?"3
In other words, this property had never been required for any communal fund. It belonged to Ananias and Sapphira. It was completely in their power. After the property was sold the money they received from the sale was also in their power. They could spend it or contribute it. If contributed, the money was a freewill, voluntary offering. It will be seen immediately that this is altogether different from a Communist's relationship to property where there is a confiscation or expropriation of each member's possessions, and the proceeds are distributed by a single person or a small committee. The member thereby loses his independence and becomes subservient to the whims and capriciousness of those who rule over him.
It would appear, therefore, that the early Christians did keep legal title to their property but "said" it was for the benefit of the whole community.
This is precisely the conclusion reached in Dummelow's Bible Commentary. It discusses the two passages we have just quoted and then says: "The Church of Jerusalem recognized the principle of
private property. A disciple's property really was his own, but he did not say it was his own; he treated it as if it were common property."
Dr. Adam Clarke's commentary also makes this significant observation concerning the Apostolic collections for the poor: "If there has been a community of goods in the Church, there could have been no ground for such (collections) ... as there could have been no such distinction as rich and poor, if every one, on entering the Church, gave up his goods to a common stock."
This, then, brings us to our final comment on this subject, namely, that the Master Teacher made it very clear in one of his parables4 that property was not to be owned in common nor in equal quantities.
In this parable he said the members of the Kingdom of God were as servants who had been given various stewardships "every man according to his several ability." One man was given a stewardship of five talents of silver and when he "traded with the same and made them other five talents," his Lord said, "Well done!" However, another servant who had been given only one talent of silver feared he might somehow lose it, so he buried it in the earth. To this man his Lord said, "Thou wicked and slothful servant!" He then took this man's one talent and gave it to the first servant where it could be developed profitably.
Two things appear very clear in this Parable of the Talents: first that every man was to enjoy his own private property as a stewardship from God. Second, that he was responsible to the earth's Creator for the profitable use of his property.
All of the evidence before us seems to clearly show that the early Christians did not practice Communism. They did not have their property in common. Instead, they had their problems in common. To solve their problems, each man was asked to voluntarily contribute according to his ability "as God had prospered him."5
When carefully analyzed, this was simply free enterprise capitalism with a heart!
The student will also probably recognize that whenever modern capitalism is practiced "with a heart" it showers blessings of wealth, generosity, good will and happy living on every community it touches. The ancient Christian order was a great idea.
____________________
1. Acts 2:44-45.
2. Acts 4:32.
3. Acts 5:4.
4. Matthew 25:14-30.
5. 1 Corinthians 16:2.
Appendix E
What is the Secret Weapon of Communism?
(This is the text of a speech delivered May 6, 1953, to 1,150 guests at the annual banquet of the Washington State Parent Teachers Association. At the time this speech was given the author was serving on the faculty of the Brigham Young University.)
One hundred years ago there was a little school of philosophers in Europe who called themselves "pure materialists." They had their headquarters in Germany. Two of those materialists carved a place for themselves in history. Through their speeches and books they lighted a flame which, in a century, has created more distrust, insecurity, bloodshed, war-mongering and destruction of property than all the criminal and gangster elements in the world combined.
One of these men was Frederick Wilhelm Nietzsche. It was Nietzsche who rose up out of the school of pure materialism to advance the idea of a superman. His ideas could be summarized as follows:"Since there is not any God and since human beings are only graduate beasts without any souls and without immortality, men should not therefore follow a system of ethics and morals. The natural law of force should prevail in the universe. The weak deserve to serve, the strong deserve to rule. Somewhere on the earth there is a nation which is just naturally superior and which should ruthlessly subdue the rest of mankind. Within that nation a single individual should rise up as the natural leader and dictator to rule over humanity because he is a superman." It was Nietzsche who made up Superman, not the comics.
Who Inspired Hitler?
Now it was Nietzsche's thinking which inspired Adolf Hitler with his apocalyptic nightmare of total war. Hitler envisioned himself as the man of destiny -- the superman -- who would one day rule the world. When Hitler wrote Mein Kampf it was as though Nietzsche were speaking from the dead. Said Hitler, "Look at these young men and boys! What material! I shall eradicate the thousands of years of human domestication. Brutal youth -- that is what I am after.... I want to see once more in its eyes the gleam ... of the beast of prey. With these I can make a new world ... and create a new order!"
Mankind felt the crushing, brutal impact of Hitler's mammoth war machine during World War II as he forced millions to join his ranks of imperialistic conquest which was designed to make him dictator of the world. In this country we watched in amazement as he rose to power. Finally, after several years of seeing the black boots of National Socialism stomp out the light of civilization wherever they marched, we rose up in our wrath and joined forces with other nations of the world to smash Nietzsche-inspired Nazism.
However, the spirit of total war which was spawned by the materialists was not confined to the National Socialists in Germany. It had been projected into the ambitions and philosophies of the leaders of several nations. It was codified into the political aims of the military leaders of Japan and Italy who also collapsed under the mighty blow which struck down National Socialism.
However, with the ending of World War II, many people felt that the conflict with materialism was at an end. Almost immediately the spirit of sacrifice seemed to wither within us. Virtually overnight our armies were demobilized, the world's largest air force was practically scrapped, and the world's largest navy was put into mothballs. All this was on the presumption that the war with materialism was finished. Time, of course, proved this presumption to be a mistake.
In putting down National Socialism and the Axis we had only conquered one form of materialism. Another form, equally strong, immediately rose to take its place. This new form of materialism came from Nietzsche's comrade-in-arms -- Karl Marx -- a man out of the same school of philosophy, with the same motivations as Nietzsche. Karl Marx thought of himself as the father of dialectical materialism, more commonly known as Communism. Today, the great force of conquest and imperialism which he envisioned stands arrayed against the people of the free world and marches under the banner of the hammer and sickle.
What Was the Mission of Karl Marx?
Some people have mistaken the mission of Karl Marx and his followers as purely economic in nature, but like all other materialists their mission was to gain power through ideological warfare. Note how they denounced any competitive ideology, even religion: "We must combat religion -- this is the ABC of materialism, and consequently of Marxism."1 And another disciple declared that when they took over, "God will be banished from the laboratories as well as from the schools."2
Now since we are dealing with the field of ideological warfare, one might well ask, What is the objective of these militant atheists? What are they trying to set up as the new ideal for human relations? Listen to the words of Lenin:
"We must hate-hatred is the basis of Communism. Children must be taught to hate their parents if they are not Communists." And listen to the amazing declaration of the former Russian Commissar of Education, Anatole Lunarcharsky: "We hate Christians and Christianity. Even the best of them must be considered our worst enemies. Christian love is an obstacle to the development of the revolution. Down with love of one's neighbor! What we want is hate.... Only then will we conquer the universe!"3
I am sure you would agree that when men like these rise to positions of power in the earth it is indeed a challenge to the youth of the free world. When Karl Marx was asked what his object in life was, he said, "To dethrone God and destroy capitalism!"
In a declared war against morals, ethics, and spiritual values among the people, Marx and his associates resolved to completely eliminate the worship of the Almighty among men. Heinrich Heine declared: "Our hearts are filled with compassion for it is ... Jehovah Himself who is making ready to die,"4 and Nietzsche, so successful in the atheistic campaign, said: let the "death of God" be boldly proclaimed.5 Ludwig Feuer-
bach announced that: "The turning point of history will be the moment man becomes aware that the only God of man is man himself."6
Pirates of Science and Religion
The strategy of the materialists was to appropriate to themselves the toga of "science" and take credit for all scientific accomplishments. Then they determined to ridicule and rationalize away all the things which they opposed by pronouncing them "unscientific." Thus they attacked the Bible, called themselves higher critics, and attempted to explain it away. They explained the worship of God as being merely the effort of man to project the qualities of his own better nature into some fictitious superior being. They called Jesus Christ an itinerant preacher whose life and writings were effeminate and weak. They ridiculed the possibility of his resurrection; They denied the immortality of human life or the existence of the spirit or soul.