Socialism: Is It Good for the Poor?

I must begin with a disclaimer. I am not an economist. Admittedly, there was a time early in my college days when I considered majoring in economics. My father, may he rest in peace, was a workingman and a member of a labor union (about which he had only good things to say). This led to my initial interest in labor economics, but the first psychology course I took quickly persuaded me that the depths of the human psyche were far more interesting than statistics about wages and unemployment.

Over time, however, it was precisely this fascination with the human psyche that motivated me to ask the following question: "Why are many Jews so convinced of the values of socialism, and why have they been so involved in the leadership of the Socialist movement?" I need not, in this essay, spell out details about the roles that Jews have played in the formation of the ideology of socialism and in its practice. Suffice it to say that the Jews are numbered among socialism's most prominent theoreticians, and that the Communist Revolution was the favored cause of multitudes of young Jews in the early years of the 20th century.

Why? What did Jews find so attractive about these movements? Why do Jews to this very day lean leftwards in their politics and advocate economic policies consistent with socialism? Why, for example, were so many of the original pioneers of the settlement of the land of Israel socialist, or communist, in their orientation?

Some have seen in the affinity that many Jews had with socialism a reply to anti-Semitism. This point of view maintains that Jews believed that they could rid themselves of the hostility others bear toward them by adopting a cause that would solve the world’s economic suffering.

Others maintain that Jews are "revolutionary by nature," and will participate in any revolutionary movement, particularly one which promises the establishment of a "just society".

Still others maintain that for many young Jews in pre-Holocaust Eastern Europe, socialism was a "way of getting rid of their Jewish heritage, of leaving the ghetto behind them."

I have found myself intrigued, over the years, by another perspective entirely. Jews find socialism attractive because they believe that it is rooted in Jewish tradition. In particular, they find that Judaism's concern for the poor and its advocacy for the practice of charity are consistent with the values of socialism, if not identical to them.

I would like to examine this contention, if only superficially. I choose to do so with a humorous anecdote, which is often related during conversations about the efficacy of socialism. Here is the anecdote:

At the beginning of the 20th century, a famed socialist leader left a mass public meeting with a throng of admirers at his heels. On their way, they passed a beggar pleading for alms. The charismatic leader ignored the beggar, but one of his many followers threw the poor man a coin. The leader turned to his follower with a scornful gaze. He shouted, "Traitor!" The follower, stunned and confused, protested: "What did I do? After all, I just helped a poor man. Didn't you teach us about the terrible suffering of the proletariat?" The leader responded, "We await the revolution, the comprehensive and absolute solution to the problems of the poor. When you give alms to the poor person, you reduce his suffering. By doing so you are delaying the revolution. Instead of a total and final solution, you give him a momentary "fix." Instead of giving him a new coat, you stitch another patch upon his rags. Therefore, you are a traitor to the cause!"

I am indebted to Rabbi Chaim Navon for this anecdote, with which he begins his essay on this week's Torah portion in his excellent work, Parashot. Rabbi Navon offers a novel analysis of the entire topic, which I leave you, dear reader, to look up for yourself. I will, however, share with you the textual difficulty with which he begins his exposition.

There are two verses in this week’s Torah portion, Re’eh (Deuteronomy 11:26-16:21), which are difficult to reconcile.

The first, Deuteronomy 15:4, appears in the context of the command for creditors to remit debts during the sabbatical year. It reads, "There shall be no needy among you… If only you heed the Lord your God and take care to keep all this Instruction that I enjoined upon you this day."

The second, a mere seven verses later (ibid. 15:11), reads, "For there will never cease to be needy ones in your land, which is why I command you: open your hand to the poor and needy kinsman in your land."

One verse assures us that there will be no poverty, while the other verse confronts us with the sad reality that there will never cease to be "needy ones in your land."

There are many ways to address this apparent contradiction. One simple approach is that the first verse refers to the ideal society, one which has thoroughly addressed and resolved the problem of poverty. The second verse refers to the sad reality, knowing full well that the ideal is rarely achieved.

Let us return to the Socialist leader who was the subject in the anecdote quoted above. What exactly was his moral flaw? I found it expressed very articulately in an essay by a scholar whom I've quoted frequently, in the past.

His name was Rabbi Chaim Zeitchik and this is what he wrote in his comments on this week’s parsha:

“Let us not forget that charity is not just a matter of economic support. Charity demands heart. One must empathize with the poor man’s plight. One must feel his dilemma, his pain, his panic. If one sees only the poor man’s outstretched hand and does not hear the bitter cries of his heart, then he has not been charitable. How penetrating are the words of the Talmud (Bava Batra 9b): ‘He who gives a coin to the poor man deserves six blessings, but he who soothes him with words deserves eleven blessings.’”

The utopian dream of the socialist visionaries has never been realized. One reason is that they saw the outstretched hand of the beggar but did not hear the bitter cries of his pained heart.

The lesson for each of us is quite simple: True charity must go much further than writing a check or handing out ten dollar bills. It must also consist of kind gestures, gentle smiles, and sincere words of encouragement.