Last week I met a socialist.

Not someone using the word casually. Not someone joking about politics. Not someone who simply “wants fairness.”

An openly committed socialist activist.

She described herself as an Islamic socialist. We were sitting in a local coffee shop — an ordinary place in an ordinary American city — and she was working on something that felt deeply unsettling.

On her laptop, she told me she was developing a program designed to prevent police from tracking what she called “revolutionary phones.” The purpose, she explained, was to alert activists if authorities were monitoring them.

There was no dramatic secrecy. No whispering. Just a calm explanation of tools meant to assist revolutionary movements.

At one point she sat next to me and read from a book she had been studying. I didn’t catch the title, but the themes were unmistakable: class struggle, power structures, systemic overthrow. She spoke plainly about her commitment to socialism and activism.

Socialism is not just an abstract theory. It is not just a slogan. It is not harmless.

It is an ideology that sees society primarily through conflict and power — and it has a record that cannot be ignored.

Many people use the word “socialism” without understanding what it actually demands — or what it has repeatedly produced.

So let’s define it clearly.

And then let’s look at its record honestly.

What Socialism Actually Is

At its core, socialism teaches that the means of production — land, factories, businesses, industry — should not be privately owned. Instead, they should be collectively owned, usually through the state.

Marxism, the most influential form of socialism, goes further. Karl Marx argued:

• History is driven by class struggle.

• Capitalism is built on exploitation.

• Profit is taken from workers’ labor.

• Private property should be abolished.

• The existing system must be overthrown.

• The revolution must continue until class distinctions are eliminated.

• A classless society will eventually emerge.

That is not a minor policy adjustment. That is a total restructuring of society.

Even modern forms of socialism that claim to be “democratic” still require expanding state control over property, industry, and economic decision-making.

Socialism is not just about helping the poor.

It is about who controls production, who controls property, and ultimately who controls power.

The Real Appeal — and the Real Danger

People are drawn to socialism because they see problems:

• Corporate corruption

• Economic inequality

• Rising costs

• Frustration with elites

Those concerns can be real.

But socialism does not limit power in response to corruption.

It centralizes power.

To eliminate private ownership, someone must decide:

• What is produced

• How much is produced

• Who receives it

• What wages are set

• What prices are allowed

That “someone” becomes the state.

And when economic power is transferred to political authority, political authority becomes enormous.

History shows that enormous political power rarely stays restrained — and those who control it benefit most.

The Historical Record Is Not Debatable

In the 20th century, regimes that explicitly built themselves on Marxist socialism governed vast populations.

The results were not theoretical.

They were measurable.

• The Soviet Union under Stalin: millions dead through purges, forced labor, and famine.

• Mao’s China: tens of millions dead during the Great Leap Forward.

• Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge: roughly a quarter of the population executed or starved.

• North Korea: generations living under totalitarian control.

• Venezuela: economic collapse following heavy socialist centralization.

Scholars debate precise numbers. But the scale is undeniable.

These were not minor missteps.

They were systems where:

• The state controlled production

• Dissent was suppressed

• Ideology was enforced

• Private ownership was dismantled

Again and again, centralized economic control led to centralized political control.

And centralized political control led to repression.

This pattern is not accidental.

It is structural.

“That Wasn’t Real Socialism”

At this point in the discussion, someone will usually say:

“That wasn’t real socialism.”

Or:

“That wasn’t true Marxism.”

Or:

“If we implemented it correctly, it would work.”

It is true that many modern socialists reject the brutality of Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot. They argue those leaders corrupted the system. They insist the ideal has never truly been tried.

But here is the problem.

Every socialist regime in history claimed it was implementing the ideal correctly.

Every revolutionary movement believed it would avoid the mistakes of the past.

Every generation said, “This time will be different.”

And yet the pattern repeated.

Centralize economic control.
Consolidate political authority.
Suppress dissent to protect the revolution.
Redefine opposition as sabotage.

The issue is not whether the ideal sounds appealing on paper.

The issue is what consistently happens when large-scale centralized control over production is combined with political enforcement.

When an idea repeatedly produces similar outcomes across different cultures, decades, and leaders, it is no longer fair to call those outcomes accidental.

At some point, the pattern becomes evidence.

An ideal that cannot be implemented without leading to repression may not be a workable ideal at all.

The Core Problem: Power

Socialism promises equality.

But to achieve equality, it must concentrate authority.

Once the state controls industry, land, and resources, it also controls livelihoods.

When the state controls livelihoods, dissent becomes dangerous.

Economic freedom and political freedom are deeply connected.

Remove one, and the other weakens.

The problem is not simply “bad leaders.”

The problem is giving fallen human beings unchecked authority over entire economies.

That is a formula for abuse.

A Christian Worldview Contrast

Christianity identifies injustice clearly.

But it locates the root problem in the human heart — not merely in economic systems.

Greed does not disappear when property changes hands.

It simply relocates.

Power does not become pure when it becomes public.

It becomes political.

The Christian vision does not place ultimate hope in centralized force. It places hope in the new life in Christ, moral transformation, voluntary generosity, and limited government under God.

When the state expands to manage every major economic function, it begins to claim authority that does not belong to it.

History shows how dangerous that becomes.

When I Tried to Share the Gospel

As we talked, I did not want the conversation to remain only political.

So I turned to Scripture.

I opened to 1 Corinthians 13 in the King James Bible — the chapter that speaks about “charity.”

Not redistribution.

Not coercion.

Charity.

“Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.”
— 1 Corinthians 13:3 (KJV)

That verse cuts deep.

You can give everything away — and still miss the point.

Because Christianity begins with the heart.

Biblical charity is voluntary. It flows from love. It is personal. It is rooted in transformation through Christ.

Socialism attempts to engineer equality through political force.

The gospel transforms people so they willingly care for others.

One system depends on centralized authority.

The other depends on changed hearts.

One gives freely out of love.

The other compels giving through the state.

When Language Becomes Political

There is another danger that has appeared repeatedly in Marxist systems: language itself begins to shift.

Terms are redefined.

Words are repurposed.

Truth becomes attached to the party.

Under explicitly Marxist regimes, the ruling authority determined what was acceptable speech, acceptable thought, and even acceptable reality.

If the party declared something to be true, dissent was not merely disagreement — it was disloyalty.

When ideology becomes supreme, objective reality becomes secondary.

History shows that citizens in such systems were required to affirm what they knew was false — because the party demanded conformity.

When the state controls economics, media, and education, it gains enormous influence over definitions.

And once definitions are controlled, thought itself narrows.

This is not merely about policy.

It is about authority over truth.

We have seen in recent years how quickly language can shift in public discourse. Words take on new meanings. Social pressure increases. To question certain narratives can cost reputation or opportunity.

I won’t expand on that here.

But history warns us: when the party becomes ultimate, disagreement becomes dangerous.

And when disagreement becomes dangerous, liberty is already fading.

Final Thoughts

Last week I met a socialist.

And it reminded me that ideas are not distant. They are present. They are active. They are spreading.

Socialism is not simply a softer form of compassion.

It is a system that restructures ownership, centralizes authority, and historically has led to repression on a massive scale.

That record is not ancient history.

It is a warning.

We can pursue justice without dismantling freedom.

We can care for the poor without empowering the state beyond restraint.

But we should not pretend that socialism is harmless.

The desire for fairness is understandable.

The system that has repeatedly followed is not.

If you are looking for an answer to injustice and inequity, the solution is not found in revolution.
It is found in Christ.

I’m not fully decided yet. But the idea keeps coming back to me.

My family has lived in the United States since before the American Revolution. Our history in Texas goes back to the early settlers who came with Stephen F. Austin. They weren’t famous. They weren’t people whose names are in textbooks. But they were here. They survived. They worked. They endured.

Some were pastors. Some were sharecroppers. Some probably lived very ordinary lives. Some didn’t do great things, and some made impacts in people’s lives we’ll never hear about. But they were part of building something.

My aunt once traced our ancestry further back and discovered connections to Roland Taylor and William Tyndale — men connected to the history of Scripture and Christian conviction. That reminded me that heritage is not only about land. It is also about belief.

And maybe that is part of why this idea won’t leave me alone.

It feels like America has been going through an identity crisis. Over the last decade, I’ve watched conversations shift in a way that often reduces this country to its failures. And to be clear, no nation is perfect. Ours isn’t either.

But I find myself wondering: is that the full story?

As a Christian, my identity in Christ comes first. Before Texas. Before America. Before anything else. But I also live here. My family lived here. Some served in the military. Others prayed, worked, and raised families here. Because of that, I feel a growing sense that maybe I should say something.

Other people have had to speak and bring truth in the past, and maybe now that time is for me?

I don’t believe America is flawless. I don’t believe Christians have always represented Christ well. But I also don’t believe this nation is simply evil, or that Christianity has been primarily harmful to society.

When I look at history, I see complexity. I see failure. But I also see movements shaped by Christian conviction — movements that pushed toward freedom, human dignity, and reform. I see people who believed in biblical ideals and tried, however imperfectly, to live them out.

Christians and Christianity made an impact in the world that has truly changed the world in a positive way, and many people have tried to erase that history.

And I keep asking myself:

Would it be helpful to explore that?

Would it be helpful to write about:

• The impact of Christianity on the West and the world

• How biblical convictions shaped Western civilization

• Whether tearing down foundational ideals leaves us with anything stable

I’m not sure yet.

Part of me hesitates because I know how charged these conversations can become. There are people who strongly dislike Christianity. There are people who strongly dislike this country. There are also people who may only know one version of the story — and have never heard another side presented calmly and thoughtfully.

Writing for the person who is open to learning and seeing a different perspective could be the right audience to aim for with this series.

I could just keep everything to myself, but I also don’t want to stay silent if there is something worth saying.

So I’m considering a series.

Nothing finalized yet. Just thinking. Praying. Weighing whether this is something I should step into.

Some of the topics I’m considering:

• The Golden Rule

  • Applied universally, grounded in God’s character

• Human equality under God

  • All people are made in the image of God

• Ending slavery movements

  • Driven by biblical moral conviction

• Hospitals and organized medical care

  • Caring for the sick as Christian duty

• Universities and literacy

  • Bible reading required widespread education

• Forgiveness over revenge

  • “Love your enemies” reshaped justice

• Marriage as covenant

  • Lifelong union rooted in creation

• Sanctity of children

  • Rejected infanticide common in Rome

• Separation of church and state

  • “Render unto Caesar…” distinction

• Limits on government power

  • Kings accountable to God

• Dignity of work

  • All labor done “as unto the Lord”

• Care for the poor

  • Charity institutionalized

• Conscience and moral responsibility

  • Internal moral law before God

• Truth sets people free

  • Truth objective, personal, liberating

• Inner transformation → outward change

  • Heart renewal before social reform

• Protection of women

  • Elevated dignity within marriage and society

• Objective moral law

  • Rooted in divine revelation

• Linear history and progress

  • Creation → redemption → restoration

• Sanctity of the body

  • Body created, redeemable, resurrected

If you think a series like this would be meaningful, I’d genuinely love to hear from you. And if you think it’s unwise, I’d be open to hearing that too.

Sometimes the first step isn’t publishing a full argument.

Sometimes it’s simply saying:
“I’m thinking about this.”

And seeing who else has been thinking about it too.

Subscribe now