The Garden of Eden Supports Capitalism - If You Read It Right
How the same biblical story reveals both a communist prison and a capitalist paradise
Communism is the centralized control of all production and capital by a governing body that poses as reallocating resources across the entire community based on need. Regardless of its theoretical ideals, in practice it has consistently resulted in totalitarian structures where individual autonomy is subordinated to state control.
Capitalism is the opposite. It is a decentralized system of free trade that allows individuals to bring forth produce to the market and keep their earnings to be used as they please. “Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man, or order of men,” Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (1776).
In layman’s terms, and the way in which I understand the concepts are that communism is “I [The government] will look after you” and capitalism is “You [the individual] look after yourself.” The Garden of Eden seems to adhere to both frameworks of organisation. At first, God looked after Adam and Eve. Then, when they consumed the forbidden fruit, they looked after themselves.
My argument is that the Garden of Eden highly supports capitalism as opposed to the communist idea of having a supreme leader who shall stand watch and care for everyone in the garden.
First, let us examine the components of the story that, at face value, might suggest the Garden of Eden supports a centralized, Communist-style state.
1. God made Man
2. God should be Lord forever
3. Assigned Work
4. The Snake is Evil
I will explain each.
1. God made man
Since God made man (Genesis 2:7), one could argue that his life belonged to God. Man is a slave to God. By this setup, anything God commands, man is bound to obey because his life does not belong to him, but to his God. Any act of disobedience is an act of rebellion and can be liable to the punishment of whatever the Lord deems appropriate.
In practice, any leader who mirrors this approach in management is known as a dictator. He is the supreme leader of the land, (Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim). The supreme authority makes all laws, and the people have absolutely no say in what those laws may be. They are bound to whatever directives are thrust upon them. Meanwhile, the people are treated as property of the state. This means that the supreme leader feels it just to kill anyone who dissents from his laws and commands.
2. God should be Lord Forever
There is an idea that has been read into the story of Eden that God that Adam and Eve were to remain naked forever and never rise to take the seat of God and become lords over their own gardens. This idea arises from the idea that God “punished” Adam and Eve for disobeying him and rising to his level (Genesis 3:14-24), as well as shown in him removing their clothing and returning them to a similar kind of nakedness when he re-clothed them in animal skin (Genesis 3:21). This is the blueprint of a dictatorship: there is no system of replenishment—no mechanism by which leadership changes hands, no path by which the governed can rise to govern themselves.
3. Assigned Work
Adam and Eve were not allowed to decide the type of work that they would do in the garden. Rather, they were provided the specific specialization of naming the animals of the garden. This type of assignment has been practiced in all communist regimes: compulsory non-choice of work. Stalin’s Soviet Union assigned workers to factories and forced peasants onto collective farms. Mao’s China directed millions into steel production and agricultural communes during the Great Leap Forward. North Korea’s songbun system assigns professions based on family background. In each case, the state—not the individual—determines what work you will do.
4. The Snake is Evil
“The serpent caused man’s fall.” “The serpent is the devil!” “If you don’t hold onto the word of God, the devil shall lead you astray as he did to Eve.”
When read through a communist lens, the serpent being labelled “evil” reveals a classic propaganda tactic. A snake was chosen to represent opposition to God—a cold-blooded creature that doesn’t look inviting and at times even eats its own eggs. This is deliberate character assassination: by making the dissenting voice a snake, anyone who questions authority is automatically associated with something repulsive.
Every communist regime employs this same strategy. In Rwanda, Hutu extremists called Tutsis “cockroaches” through radio broadcasts, dehumanising them before the 1994 genocide. Hitler and Mussolini called their political opponents “vermin”—pests to be exterminated. Stalin branded dissidents as “enemies of the people” and “wreckers.” In each case, the governing body wants people to listen and obey only them and nobody else. They want full control over their subjects and to suppress dissenting voices, particularly those that might otherwise be popular.
The Rebuttal: The Capitalist Manifesto aka The Garden of Eden
Every component discussed above can be re-established as a capitalist framework.
1. God made Man: A Decentralised System
“God made man.” This suggests that man is a child of God. This is reiterated in the verse “Man was made in the image of God.” The only structure in which man is created and looks like the image of their creator is the relationship between a child and their parent. This is the structure of the nuclear home. The government does not make man. A parent does. This suggests that the Garden of Eden is small and intimate. This represents a decentralized system of governance where power is distributed across thousands or millions of individual family units, with the head of each household responsible for the survival, education, and flourishing of their own children.
The fact that the Garden of Eden is actually small, is the backbone of capitalism, for capitalism says “Look after yourself.” It removes power from the government and puts the responsibility of life into every household and the community. By looking at the story this way, we see that it advocates decentralised power, as opposed to centralised control.
A Small Garden = A Focus on Individual Sovereignty
But also the fact the garden is so small, suggests that the leadership style is one that focuses on the individual. The government cares about each and every individual in their garden over the collective. At the heart of their culture is the regard for individual human life and dignity. It does not reduce people to an undifferentiated collective but treats every human life as unique, valuable, and possessed of individual potential. The intimacy of the garden—one person in relationship with his Creator—reflects the irreducible value of the individual.
2. God should not remain Lord forever: Adam and Eve become like god
In the story, Adam and Eve become like god, meaning they become Lords (masters) of the garden, just like God, and to prove this they left the garden and had children of their own and became lords over them. The story makes it seem as though they were kicked out of the garden for insolence, but actually, that is a red herring because in the normal course of parent-child relationships, the child is supposed to grow up to become an adult and lead a household – just like their parents. This red herring is highlighted by the fact that Adam and Eve established their own household, and became heads of their own family unit—lords over their children Cain and Abel. This is the natural progression of life: one generation raises the next to independence, and the cycle continues.
From a macro perspective, this change in position from follower to a key decision-maker, can also be applied in the workplace and even in major institutions such as governance; For, it fundamentally shows that every man in the kingdom has equal opportunity to get to positions of power and influence. On the other hand, dictators never want to get rid of their position.
3. Assigned Work is for Children
Adam and Eve ought to be assigned work by their parents if they are children. Children become bored and they need to be told what to do otherwise because they cannot yet think for themselves. They need to build up the muscles of discipline in order to be a capable adult to be able to look after dependents of their own. Hence, naming the animals is akin to a parent telling their child to perhaps do the dishes, or another household chore. It provides them with manageable responsibility.
4. The Snake is not Evil by Propaganda but by Bias
If this story were truly an advocate for communism then the snake wouldn’t exist, right? Wrong. It is impossible to get rid of opposing opinions. Even within the unit individual, a man wrestles with opposing ideas in himself when making a decision.
In the capitalist garden, the God of the garden would not name the opposing voice a snake. So, where does this label come from?
The label comes from the individual. When we grow up with our parents, we see them as our gods. They are the best. They know everything. They cannot be wrong, so any outside opinions that challenge what we have been taught from our parents are evil. For our parents are good. How can they not be good? They feed us, clothe us and protect us. So anyone that attacks our worldview, attacks the righteousness of our parent and we won’t have it. Those people are wrong – not our parents.
Conclusion: What is the key differential between the Garden of Eden being a Communist Manifesto versus a Capitalist Manifesto?
By viewing Adam and Eve like adults, we obtain an outcome of a communist garden – a Prison of Eden in which grown adults are treated as though children. By viewing Adam and Eve as children, we view God as a parent and we see a capitalist garden, in which millions of homes are Gardens of Eden, thereby creating the sum of a synergistic Garden of Eden.