English
Português
Español
Français
Response
No contemporary political system is directly depicted in Scripture, let alone discussed. Present discussions on governance involve elements of society that were nonexistent in ancient times. Nevertheless, individuals often seek biblical narratives that bear some resemblance to modern politics. One area of interest is the concept of socialism. A notable reference for this subject is found in Genesis 47:13–26. In this account, Joseph oversees a program where the Egyptian government provides food and seed during a famine, along with specific instructions on their use, all subject to a mandatory tax. The populace appreciates this initiative, choosing it over starvation “And they said, You have saved our lives; may we find favor in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh’s servants.”, (Genesis 47:25).
Depending on one’s perspective, Joseph’s actions can be viewed as either in line with socialism or contradictory to it. They can also be seen as a model to follow or as a unique event not to be replicated. Joseph’s management of Egypt during the famine sheds light on the Bible’s perspective on political concepts, although it does not offer a definitive stance. The guidance provided by Joseph in this narrative does not fit neatly into either a capitalistic or socialistic framework; rather, it combines elements of both.
Understanding the complete narrative is essential for interpreting the story. Joseph accurately interpreted Pharaoh’s dreams, which foretold seven years of abundance followed by seven years of severe famine (Genesis 41:29-31). Pharaoh agreed to Joseph’s suggestion of implementing a 20 percent tax on all produce to build a reserve for the lean years (Genesis 41:34-36). Joseph was appointed as the overseer of this initiative.
When the fami
When famine struck, Joseph sold the stockpiled grain to the starving people. This was given in exchange for their money «And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh’s house. », (Genesis 47:14), then their livestock «And they brought their cattle unto Joseph: and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for the flocks, and for the cattle of the herds, and for the asses: and he fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year. », (Genesis 47:17), then their land and servitude (Genesis 47:18-21). As the land was now owned by Pharaoh of Egypt, Joseph controlled how it would be used and levied taxes on the resulting crops for the benefit of Pharaoh «And it shall come to pass in the increase, that ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food, and for them of your households, and for food for your little ones. », (Genesis 47:24).
Regarding socialism and capitalism, a few points should be highlighted. Preparation for the famine can be compared to “textbook” socialism. A government-mandated program levied taxes meant to provide for the greater good. However, this comparison changes when the famine strikes. Joseph does not distribute the tax-collected grain back to the people. Instead, he sells their taxed grain back to them.
Viewing the situation only from the beginning of the famine, Joseph’s actions resemble “textbook” capitalism. Pharaoh’s resources include something other people want—in this case, they literally need it to survive. ThatValuable property is then traded for money, goods, land, and even indentured service. The commodity involved was not created by capitalism but by government-mandated taxes.
Some would argue that “real-world” socialism, unlike the theory, always ends up in exactly that scenario. Citizens pay taxes with the promise of future returns, but when a real need arises, the government effectively charges its citizens to get back a small portion of what they paid in.
The post-famine era also reflects elements of government control, but not “textbook” socialism. Joseph’s continuation of the 20 percent tax is not to provide food or service for the people. They are told to live and eat from their 80 percent, while the rest is for Pharaoh, who now owns them and their land (Genesis 47:23-25). Egypt, post-famine, was a people driven into indentured servitude by a disaster and scarce resources. The result was a government in total control; the people no longer had ownership of their land. That’s not a good look for “socialism,” and it goes right to some of the major concerns people have about that philosophy. It’s not that the government consistently helped people, so they willingly gave over their autonomy. The worse the shortage was, the more dependent the people became on the government simply to survive.
On the other hand, Joseph’s leadership was legitimately valuable in getting Egypt through a major crisis. At times, central control and a suspension of “rights” can be justified as reasonable alternatives. One can argue the Egyptian people wound up “less free” than they were, though a likely alternative would have been their being dead.
Making Joseph’s example a positive case for socialism ultimately fails. The Egyptian government’s ability to save people from disaster wasn’t based on a wide set of good policies. It was based on insider information: a miraculous, supernatural prophecy that only
Only one man could interpret. If Joseph hadn’t received divine warning about the shortage seven years in advance, the government would have been unable to take action. Critics note that leaders of contemporary socialism are far from saintly. Even in the case of a virtuous man like Joseph, the subsequent generations who inherited those powers quickly transformed them into a harsh dictatorship (Exodus 1:8-14).
Support for certain aspects of socialism can be found in Genesis 47:13–26. This narrative illustrates how organized distribution of resources at a high level can avert widespread disaster. It could be argued that Joseph’s story lends support to socialism by presenting an example of what not to do: resources accumulated through taxes being sold back instead of redistributed.
Criticism of certain aspects of socialism also emerges in this account, showcasing the negative effects of excessive government control. There is a cautionary aspect to heavy reliance on government. Some might suggest that Egypt’s case demonstrates how easily—almost inevitably—an authoritarian government in the name of social welfare transitions into complete government control.
In the strictest sense, Joseph’s story in Genesis 47:13–26 is not about socialism, nor does it directly address that contemporary political ideology. Nonetheless, some elements are pertinent to such discussions. However, these must be viewed in the appropriate context.
