Was Jesus a Socialist?

[Wake]

These two verses from Acts sound very socialist to me. The first is Acts 2:44-45: "All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." The second is from Acts 4:34-37 "There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet."

Which socialists are apostles of God?

 

[disneydude]

Did Jesus believe in collective or common ownership of the means of production??

You are confusing communism and socialism. They are not the same thing.

 

[Goshin]

These two verses from Acts sound very socialist to me. The first is Acts 2:44-45: "All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." The second is from Acts 4:34-37 "There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet."

They took care of each other. This is known as communalism, and is commonly practiced by small tribes and other small bands of people from early history. Note that nowhere does it say they tried to take care of everyone everywhere. Nor does it say all congregations practiced thus. Note that this is not put forward as a commandment. Note that it was done willingly and voluntarily, not by coercion. This is not socialism. Socialism didn't exist then.

 

[Goshin]

Results absolutely matter. And the results from half-assed programs that don't accomplish their goals and self-centered private charity are in. They fail at their aims. We need a better system.

Not really. Most private charities have a better dollar-comes-in-dollar-actually-gets-to-the-needy than the gov programs... there was a study on this a while back. Also, the gov programs seem to fail in their goals most of the time, so why should I believe in them?

Again, these are political arguments... the OP has no legs to stand on.

 

[Paschendale]

Not really. Most private charities have a better dollar-comes-in-dollar-actually-gets-to-the-needy than the gov programs... there was a study on this a while back.

I'd like to see how those cute little charities do when attempting to deal with a systemic issue. I don't know of any charity large enough to actually do something about poverty, or about illiteracy. All these charities can do is tackle a few individual cases, without addressing the root cause. The problem continues despite the most well-meaning efforts of these charitable organizations. They are not capable of enacting large-scale change. Only a government is actually big enough to do that.

Also, the gov programs seem to fail in their goals most of the time, so why should I believe in them?

As I said before, they fail because we do not empower them with enough resources to succeed. We cut school budgets and then wonder why children aren't learning as much. We know that people don't have jobs, but we do nothing (or at least, not enough to actually fix the problem) to help them get them. All it takes is prioritizing a problem, and then just doing whatever is needed to solve it. That kind of simple approach always gets mudded down by red tape and partisan politics.

Again, these are political arguments... the OP has no legs to stand on.

Yeah, the OP was fairly simple to answer. Socialism didn't exist 2000 years ago.

 

[Paschendale]

They took care of each other. This is known as communalism, and is commonly practiced by small tribes and other small bands of people from early history. Note that nowhere does it say they tried to take care of everyone everywhere. Nor does it say all congregations practiced thus. Note that this is not put forward as a commandment. Note that it was done willingly and voluntarily, not by coercion. This is not socialism. Socialism didn't exist then.

You say voluntarily, I say necessary to survive. The tribes and clans that didn't watch each others' backs didn't last very long. And again, mutually agreeing to something makes it voluntary, just as the US lawfully adopting socialist policies by normal voting procedures would also make it voluntary. Losing an election does not make the policies enacted after that election coercive. Skipping the vote altogether or subverting might, though.

Tribal communalism may not be called socialism, but it functioned pretty much the same way. All the resources of the group were devoted to the survival and prosperity of the group, which did include the survival and prosperity of its members. People didn't deny to their clan-mates the things they needed out of a sense of greed. They would not last long in the tribe if they did. Still, it was their closeness that allowed this mentality. We do not have communities like they did, and I truly mourn that. But that is an example of socialism functioning properly. It is what a group of humans will naturally fall into if they must rely on one another to survive. We can only be so cutthroat capitalist because our only major fear is each other. We'd turn commie pretty quick if aliens arrived on our doorstep.

 

[German guy]

Socialism, in absentia of a modern industrial society, did not exist in Jesus' times.

But both Moses and Jesus explicitly condemned taking interest when lending money (so did Mohammed, for that matter). So they were certainly "capitalism critics", if you like to apply modern terms to it. For some reason, though, many Christians don't have a problem with an interest based economy.

The case can also be made that Jesus was a pacifict. "Turn the other cheek" and "he who is without sin throw the first stone". Maybe it's a stretch, but I assume that means Jesus wouldn't have supported starting wars or death penalty. Certainly he wouldn't have supported law-and-order folks who cry for harder punishments all the time.

Considering how outrageous these teachings must have appeared to the people back then, teachings which were very anti-establishment, the case can maybe be made Jesus was not a socialist, but a hippie (without the free love thing -- but then, we don't really know what was going on with Mary Magdalene).

 

[Wake]

Not really. Most private charities have a better dollar-comes-in-dollar-actually-gets-to-the-needy than the gov programs... there was a study on this a while back. Also, the gov programs seem to fail in their goals most of the time, so why should I believe in them?

Again, these are political arguments... the OP has no legs to stand on.

The OP came from Sangha. I'll pm him to see if he'll back himself up.

 

[sangha]

Absolutely not. Yet my discussion with Sangha indicates that He was. Furthermore, I've heard such statements from ideological liberals before. Of course, not all liberals believe this, yet I've never heard He was a socialist from conservatives.

If you had continued to read the thread where I said that Jesus was a socialist, you would have seen that, based on the arguments of other posters, I changed my mind to "Jesus was socialistic" because Jesus did not promote any political ideology. However, he did promote the idea that people should make sacrifices for the common good, including having the rich sell off all of their possessions and give the proceeds to the poor.

 

[sangha]

Jesus was telling a rich man to be charitable, independent of any form of government or market system.

It means a whole lot more than that. It is also an admonition against accumulating goods when others go needy, which could be read as a denunciation of capitalism which is based on the accumulation of material wealth (ie capital)

 

[sangha]

Well I mean ****, he could have made a killing opening up a fish restaurant, he'd have barely any overhead costs.

How very un - patriotic of him to just hand out fish for free, doesn't he know he's creating liberal free loaders!

If you had actually read the Bible, you would know that on the next day, Jesus refused to hand out bread and fishes. Instead, he said they should eat the bread of their Heavenly Father, which confused the heck out of a lot of Jews.

 

[sangha]

No, it's just a higher form of charity that we, in a society run by greed, is not used to. Jesus, would have known this not as "charity", but "tzedakah". Tzedakah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and again, it's independent of any form of government. He didn't say "give all your positions to the poor, unless you are a socialist, then just wait for the tax man with a 90% tax rate."

You are supposed to be charitable, regardless of what form of government you believe in. even If you believe in a 99% tax rate, government universities/stores/water parks/rent/etc for everyone, you still have the obligation to give to charity.

Jesus advocated for much more than simple charity. He proposed that the rich sell EVERYTHING they owned. It was a warning about accumulating material wealth when others were going without the basic necessities

 

[sangha]

Taxes isn't giving to the poor, it's giving to the government. If the government, the "middle man", is honest, he will use it to give charity and do good works as well, but that is still a lower form of charity

...and there is still the problem of "honesty" and "wisdom" issue, which the government lacks.

Socialism is a lot more than "giving money to the govt"

 

[sangha]

For the same reason I would never advocate the spread of Christianity "by the sword" (ie convert or die). It takes away choice; it makes the rightousness of charity something the government does in your stead, automatically, whether you will or not, and to whom you will or not. It makes the rightousness of charity compulsory and automatic, and the individual never gets to demonstrate what he would do if left to his own choice. Or else he is left with his conscience left wanting, feeling that the government's socialism with that portion of his pay that they've taken is no proper spiritual equivalent; perhaps he will feel compelled to do further charity even though the taxation of socialism may have left him with little to begin with.

As with communism, the problem I have with socialism is the coercive part. That, and the creation of special dependency classes, the loss of independent spirit in segments of the populace, and the tendency of social programs to grow until they bankrupt the nation.... as ours are doing.

According to Jesus, if you didn't sell off your excess wealth and give it to the poor, you would be damned to Hell. That sounds pretty coercive to me.

 

[sangha]

How is that actually working out for us, Paschendale? We have generational dependency, loss of family cohesion due to welfare policies that discourage marriage and permanent partnering, and the creation of a permanent underclass that always clamors for more bennies but never seems to rise above their dependency or poverty, as a whole. If we, as a society, had programs that demonstrated large-scale positive results in getting people out of poverty and dependency and into the self-supporting class, I might feel rather differently about it. If the nation weren't on the verge of bankruptcy and if more than half the deficit wasn't a result of social programs, it might seem more viable. If socialism actually helped produce a larger independent middle-class instead of a larger dependent class.... well you get the picture.

Intentions are all very well and good, but results matter too.

I'll let you know after we institute a socialist system. However, there are a few socialistic nations that have a higher standard of living than we do. They aren't as wealthy as the capitalistic US, but they do enjoy a better SOL

 

[sangha]

How does welfare discourage marriage and family? Unless you're taking the position that people who could live comfortably and work choose not to in order to abuse welfare. A position that has been discussed, at length, and revealed to be a load of bull. The vast majority of welfare recipients are impoverished children, and most of the rest obtain welfare benefits for less than a year before returning to the workforce. Or at least, this was so before the recession. I don't know the numbers post-2008, but the basic tenets of human morality have not drastically altered in the last three years. A tiny minority are welfare queens. And the benefit reaped from those programs far outweighs the cost of a few freeloaders. I contend that these programs don't do enough. They only help a person regain what they had lost. Those in poverty still remain in poverty, because we do not have adequate education. We have far too many teachers using antiquated equipment. And then, even if a poor child obtains a decent education, we have no means to get that person into a job. Comprehensive education and job placement programs will grow the middle class and keep it stable.

The problem is that our programs are underfunded and unfocused. They are not powerful enough to tackle the problems they are tasked with. Our social support systems only go far enough to help a person maintain what they have, which isn't enough for many Americans who are trapped in poverty.

As for our deficit... we do have the lowest tax rate in the industrialized world. Why is it surprising that we don't get much bang for our buck? We gear our whole economic system towards personal gain, with a zero-sum outcome, and then call those who do not succeed in this system failures and immoral. As opposed to the reality where most of one's success is based on where one started out. Our programs do not cure poverty because they are not designed to. They are designed to maintain poverty, but prevent starvation. If we want people to actually escape poverty, they need more than food stamps. They need jobs. The current system of "go out and find a job" is inefficient and clearly not working. We need a system to place people with work, effectively. We need those jobs to pay a wage that will get people out of poverty. And we need to educate people so they can do those jobs. And we need to not make those people take on a lifetime of debt in order to do it.

Results absolutely matter. And the results from half-assed programs that don't accomplish their goals and self-centered private charity are in. They fail at their aims. We need a better system.

Very well said. I would add that charity, including those run by the clergy, are also subject to waste, fraud, corruption and inefficiency.

 

[Paschendale]

I'll let you know after we institute a socialist system. However, there are a few socialistic nations that have a higher standard of living than we do. They aren't as wealthy as the capitalistic US, but they do enjoy a better SOL

Our standard of living has dropped compared to the more socialistic European nations. The evidence is right there in front of us that our methods aren't working. At least, not working for anyone besides the ultra-rich. Hence all the effort poured into the propaganda machine to make us focus on other things while they run off with all the money.

 

[sangha]

They took care of each other. This is known as communalism, and is commonly practiced by small tribes and other small bands of people from early history. Note that nowhere does it say they tried to take care of everyone everywhere. Nor does it say all congregations practiced thus. Note that this is not put forward as a commandment. Note that it was done willingly and voluntarily, not by coercion. This is not socialism. Socialism didn't exist then.

Socialism doen't require coercion. As paschendale has pointed out, the same can be accomplished through democratic means. However, it would require people to behave more Christ-like, which seems to be impossible to do in this so-colled "christian" nation

 

[sangha]

Not really. Most private charities have a better dollar-comes-in-dollar-actually-gets-to-the-needy than the gov programs... there was a study on this a while back. Also, the gov programs seem to fail in their goals most of the time, so why should I believe in them?

Again, these are political arguments... the OP has no legs to stand on.

Socialism is a system, not merely a govt program.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Dammit, did I grab the wrong ch:vs for the right quote?

****. Luke 18:22.

/whew No, it was right in the original post. I just dropped the '1' further down.

And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 19And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. 20Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. 21And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up. 22Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.​

Sounds like Jesus supported distribution of wealth. Maybe he wasn't a Socialist, but he sure did seem to lean left.

 

[Goshin]

Jesus advocated for much more than simple charity. He proposed that the rich sell EVERYTHING they owned. It was a warning about accumulating material wealth when others were going without the basic necessities

According to Jesus, if you didn't sell off your excess wealth and give it to the poor, you would be damned to Hell. That sounds pretty coercive to me.

Jesus said this to one rich man. One. If you can show me where he commanded in general "ALL rich people must give ALL they have to the poor, or go to hell" then I am all ears.... but I'm reasonably sure He never said that as a general commandment.

Like many, you're taking one isolated instance and expanding it beyond what was intended. Jesus told the rich man to sell all that he had, "take up the cross and follow me," because the man was hung up on his wealth... it was an idol to him, something that stood between him and God. In other passages, Jesus taught that none should let anything stand between them and Heaven... that if they could not follow God because of the lust of the eyes, it was better they gouge their eyes out than go to hell for being unable to control their idolotry of lust.

You're teaching half a sermon and neglecting the rest.

 

[Goshin]

Very well said. I would add that charity, including those run by the clergy, are also subject to waste, fraud, corruption and inefficiency.

Well funny you should say that, considering the OP, since the charity of which Jesus taught was chiefly managed by the clergy.

Do you consider yourself a Christian, Sangha?

 

[Goshin]

I'd like to see how those cute little charities do when attempting to deal with a systemic issue. I don't know of any charity large enough to actually do something about poverty, or about illiteracy. All these charities can do is tackle a few individual cases, without addressing the root cause. The problem continues despite the most well-meaning efforts of these charitable organizations. They are not capable of enacting large-scale change. Only a government is actually big enough to do that.



As I said before, they fail because we do not empower them with enough resources to succeed. We cut school budgets and then wonder why children aren't learning as much. We know that people don't have jobs, but we do nothing (or at least, not enough to actually fix the problem) to help them get them. All it takes is prioritizing a problem, and then just doing whatever is needed to solve it. That kind of simple approach always gets mudded down by red tape and partisan politics.

.

Hm. I shouldn't trust private charity because they aren't big enough to solve the problem of poverty. Yet I should trust government to solve the problem of poverty because... its been trying to do so for sixty years and we still have about the same percentage living under the poverty level as we did sixty years ago.:screwy

So the problem is that government, who can't even tell us where tens of billions went from the stimulus, who can't balance their budget, who are on the verge of bankrupting us as a nation, who are going over a trillion more in debt every year NOW, the problem is that government isn't big enough yet. :think:

Sorry, that one doesn't sound so hot either. :cuckoo:



I'd like to bring up another saying of Jesus' at this time: "The poor you will have always."

 

[Wake]

Socialists realize a lot of people like Jesus.

They've got to draw parallels to bring those people to socialism.

 

[Goshin]

You say voluntarily, I say necessary to survive. The tribes and clans that didn't watch each others' backs didn't last very long. And again, mutually agreeing to something makes it voluntary, just as the US lawfully adopting socialist policies by normal voting procedures would also make it voluntary. Losing an election does not make the policies enacted after that election coercive. Skipping the vote altogether or subverting might, though.

Tribal communalism may not be called socialism, but it functioned pretty much the same way. All the resources of the group were devoted to the survival and prosperity of the group, which did include the survival and prosperity of its members. People didn't deny to their clan-mates the things they needed out of a sense of greed. They would not last long in the tribe if they did. Still, it was their closeness that allowed this mentality. We do not have communities like they did, and I truly mourn that. But that is an example of socialism functioning properly. It is what a group of humans will naturally fall into if they must rely on one another to survive. We can only be so cutthroat capitalist because our only major fear is each other. We'd turn commie pretty quick if aliens arrived on our doorstep.

Socialism/Communalism is the default state of families, just as it was common among small tribes and hunter-gatherer-herder bands. It works at that level because the group is small, tightly-knit, interdependent, and slackers face the ultimate sanction: being kicked out to starve on their own or fall prey to other tribes or animals.

On national scales, it doesn't work so well. There's the "free rider" problem. There's the "tragedy of the commons". There's the example of the USSR, China before it began free-market reforms, and heck there is the USA, currently spending its way into cheerful bankruptcy because our politicians are too chicken to admit that we can't keep spending on social programs at this level and survive. Point to Europe if you like: many European countries are in financial trouble and having to implment "austerity programs", cutting social spending, to avoid bankruptcy.

Don't misunderstand me: I think we should definitely act to keep folks from starving to death. In principle I don't object to state governments being involved in "hand UP" programs to help people down on their luck get back on their feet and be self-supporting. I don't object to society taking care of those who are GENUINELY disabled. But a full-blown Socialist State.... that tends not to end well.