Excellent article on the current fascination with socialism. This article gives a great take with proven historical facts about the early founding of our nation. Worth the read, share with others. Rh
Like many of you, I’ve been watching democratic candidates win elections nationwide on radical socialist platforms. And it’s concerning.
According to the Brookings Institution, the Democratic Socialists of America are “having a moment” that started with the election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York City in late 2025. Since then, Democratic candidates linked to the DSA, like Abdul El-Sayed, or running on socialist-friendly platforms, like James Talarico, have captured high-profile primary wins in critical states.
“Shared wealth” can seem appealing, even deceptively “Christian.” Some believers even suggest that the early church was practicing a kind of socialism described in Acts 2:44-45: “All the believers were together and had everything in common. They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.”
Sharing with others is one of our highest values as Christians, and it’s often one of the earliest lessons in a child’s life. But there’s a major difference between socialist ideology and what was happening in Acts 2: Socialism doesn’t give you the choice. It forces the hand of the taxpayer, removing your autonomy as the giver and distancing you from the receiver.
On the contrary, those in the Acts 2 church gave of their own free will. We know this because in Acts 5, Peter strongly condemns Ananias and his wife Sapphira before the Lord strikes them dead—not for withholding funds, but for lying about the amount they gave. Here’s how Peter confronts Ananias in verse 4: “Didn’t [the land] belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?”
Later, Paul revisits this idea that giving should never be forced: “Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” (2 Cor. 9:7)
Imagine encountering a church or a neighborhood that required you to surrender your entire income for corporate use and equal distribution throughout its community. Believe it or not, the first American settlers did exactly that.
Early American socialism
In early settlements of both Plymouth and Jamestown, the American colonists shared property and equally distributed the fruits of their labor. Though they shared goods, they often did not share the same work ethic. Here’s how historians David and Tim Barton describe the situation in their book, The American Story: The Beginnings: “It didn’t take long for those inclined to laziness to find that this was a system that suited them well; they could receive provisions without working. The result was inefficiency, nonproductivity, and injustice.” (p. 54)
In Jamestown this system contributed to a disastrous loss of life in the winter of 1609, otherwise known as “The Starving Time.” Only 60 out of 490 colonists survived that terrible winter, and hideous forms of cannibalism took place as desperation replaced order.
Eventually, governors John Smith of Jamestown and William Bradford of Plymouth both instituted new economic systems to combat this deadly temptation to laziness. They assigned parcels of land for each family to provide for themselves. Charity was provided only to the sick, disabled, and elderly.
According to The American Story, settlers in Plymouth planted seven times more than they had under the previous system. Governor Bradford made these observations about the free-market approach: “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the governor or any other could use. … The women now went willingly into the field and took their little ones with them to set corn, which before would allege [fake, or pretend] weakness and inability.” (p. 55)
As an interesting side note, the Pilgrims at Plymouth embraced biblical teachings about personal provision far more readily than their predecessors in Virginia. When Governor Smith was injured and returned to England, the Jamestown colony reverted to their laziness and socialist instincts. Though most professed Christianity, their religious practice was rooted in the Anglican Church of England, where state-appointed priests told them how to interpret the Bible. The colonists at Plymouth strongly opposed state-run churches. They placed high value on a personal knowledge of scripture and obedience.
These very different approaches to Christianity produced opposing ways of life, most importantly regarding chattel slavery in America. The Virginia colonists’ resistance to working for themselves made them more inclined towards advancing the evils of slavery. By contrast, the Massachusetts colonists did not embrace chattel slavery because of their strong work ethic and a scriptural mindset of equal dignity for all humankind.
This history of Plymouth and Jamestown holds so many lessons and warnings for modern American Christians as we prepare to vote in the coming months. Both good and bad leadership will undoubtedly affect the generations that come after us.
Despite political trends, we must continue to expose the evil root of laziness, opportunism, and godlessness inherent to socialism. We must persist in cultivating biblical literacy and sound doctrine in the church. And finally, we must do our best to elect leaders with a biblical mindset. At iVoterGuide, we’re here to provide the data you need to do just that.
For our future,
Debbie
Debbie Wuthnow
President, iVoterGuide
