No, Jesus Wasn't a Socialist

ghoti

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
46,141
Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Matthew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

Capitialism is where capital controls the means of production
Socialism is where the state controls the means of production
Communism is where the people control the means of production

I would agree. Jesus does not come as someone promoting the state. More likely he would be classed as a communist by the definitions above. When he made that fish and bread for all the people in feeding the multitude. He controlled the means of production. He did not charge people for the food and gave it away for free. So technically communist.
 

ghoti

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
46,141
but communists don't like religion that much, are you suggesting Jesus was an atheist as well?
Communism is economics. Thats one axis on the political compass.

The other axis has to do with your civil and religious liberties. That can go either way.

It depends on who is running your communism.

If its a dictator in an eastern european country with high levels of autocracy on their axis, then yeah, they may be hostile to religion.
If its a hippy in a commune, then you will likely get all the religious freedom you want.

Just remember. Two axis on your political compass. One deal with economics, one deals with your personal freedoms. You can get authoritarian communist societies and libertarian communist societies.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,042
I've often stated that there are many individualist tendencies in Christianity. So I agree with the premise.

But we have to be careful which denomination/version of Christianity is being referred. Some might bare asserted authority by other man-made institutions or people.
 
Last edited:

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,042
It depends on who is running your communism.
Interesting.
You've either got autonomous dispersion of wealth or forced distribution of wealth.
Irrespective of who is running it, which of the two above would fall under your definition/views of communism?
 

ghoti

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
46,141
Interesting.
You've either got autonomous dispersion of wealth or forced distribution of wealth.
Irrespective of who is running it, which of the two above would fall under your definition/views of communism?
Who controls the means of production in your scenario? (this decides if its communist, socialist or capitalist).


Capitalism, socialism and communism can all fall under your examples.
 

etienne_marais

Executive Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
7,142
Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Matthew 19:24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

Capitialism is where capital controls the means of production
Socialism is where the state controls the means of production
Communism is where the people control the means of production

I would agree. Jesus does not come as someone promoting the state. More likely he would be classed as a communist by the definitions above. When he made that fish and bread for all the people in feeding the multitude. He controlled the means of production. He did not charge people for the food and gave it away for free. So technically communist.
Nonsense, all Communist countries seek state control of just about every aspect of your life. Stop romanticizing this satanic system.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
7,042
Who controls the means of production in your scenario? (this decides if its communist, socialist or capitalist).

Capitalism, socialism and communism can all fall under your examples.
Well I suppose I don't really care who controls it. I only care if the transaction is mutual and abides by non-aggression.

Socialism and communism, as per my understanding, cannot abide by non-aggression. So I was interested in your definition/view to see how it possibly can or where I might be misinterpreting it.

Charity, as per OP article, abides by non-aggression.
Socialism/communism doesn't afaik.
 

LCBXX

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Messages
11,428
If I remember Jesus' story correctly, he allegedly got executed by the very people he tried to liberate.
 

ghoti

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
46,141
First I want to start this off by saying. I dont support capitalism, I dont support communism. I dont support socialism. I dont support any monolithic extremest economic view. In fact, I find the debate "communism vs capitalism" something designed to keep simpletons arguing. There is NO such thing as a pure capitialist state, and there is no such thing as a pure communist state. (Though both their pundits will tell us that their idea is the bees knees and works perfectly in theory).

EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY in the world is a mixed market state (a combination of socialism and capitalism). The argument is not which is better (we need both) the real debate is about how much of each we need and where we need it.

America has strong socialist systems (such as the fed, cops, fire department, army, justice, etc). China has markets and capitalism.

Even minarchist view has elements of socialism in it (just on issues that are important to them, such as security)

America tried having a capitalistic fire department. They were like our private security. You would pay a monthly fee and if your house caught fire, they would come and put it out. Problem with that is that X fire department would rock up at a burning site and see that it had the badge for Z fire department. They would do nothing and watch the building burn down (taking with it its neighbors). This caused massive losses.

So they turned their fire departments socialist. Now everyone gets the same treatment from the fire department and less cities are burning down.

I personally believe, not everything that is good for humanity is a profit making opportunity for someone, but I also believe, let the markets do their thing as much possible. If the market fails (like with the fire department example), then only should the state come into the picture. IE our justice department (imagine if everyone had their own private justice department)



Well I suppose I don't really care who controls it. I only care if the transaction is mutual and abides by non-aggression.
Two things are certain (unless you are Amazon), death and taxes. Capitalist and socialist countries do this. Just in different amounts.

"Non-aggression" - Well for that you need either a hippy paradise or cops. Your cops can be socialist (like in most countries in the world atm) or they can be capitalist (private armies)


Socialism and communism, as per my understanding, cannot abide by non-aggression.
Most war is fought for resources and the military budgets of capitalist countries in the world are bigger than anything the socialists are doing.

War in my mind, is very much capitalist. Though often dressed up as socialism to get public support. Everyone knows that war is the biggest money maker of them all.

So I was interested in your definition/view to see how it possibly can or where I might be misinterpreting it.
Not my definition. Its in our economics 101 text books.

Charity, as per OP article, abides by non-aggression.
Socialism/communism doesn't afaik.
Personally I think you only see one type of socialism, autocratic socialism.

Remember.... two axis. The other side of the political compass has democratic socialism, which has empirically provided some of the worlds happiest, healthiest and most educated societies.
 

Speedster

Executive Member
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
9,255
/snip. The other side of the political compass has democratic socialism, which has empirically provided some of the worlds happiest, healthiest and most educated societies.
Such as?
 

Speedster

Executive Member
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
9,255
Finland, Norway, Canada and such.
I think you need to brush up on your political history. Canada, for a start, is most definitely not a socialist state. As for the Nordic countries, I leave you with these quotes:

To the former prime minister, the damage socialism can cause is still fresh in his memory. After all, he was the first prime minister in 60 years to not subscribe to the ideology. And thanks to him, Sweden’s capital gains taxes were cut to 30 percent and corporate taxes to 28 percent.

Bildt also privatized several state-owned industries, deregulated multiple sectors of the economy, allowed people to invest portions of their pension, and introduced school choice policies, improving the country’s education system.

After Bildt, Sweden, which had completely lost its host of entrepreneurs thanks to business taxes that sometimes exceeded the 100 percent mark, once again flourished. Even as Social Democrat successor Ingvar Carlsson took over.

Seeing the wonderful changes just a few years worth of reform had done, Carlsson kept Bildt’s policies in place. And business start-ups rose nearly 25 percent as a result.

...

As explained by Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen in 2015, countries like his Denmark “[are] far from [socialist planned economies].”

“Denmark is a market economy,” he added. And as demonstrated by Mises in Economic Policy: Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow , there’s “no western, capitalistic country in which the conditions of the masses have not improved in an unprecedented way.”

In other words, to claim the successes of Nordic countries are due to socialism is nothing but a lie.

What’s more, the Nordic countries’ social successes predate their high-tax, high-social spending policies. A 2016 paper by the economists Anthony Barnes Atkinson and Jakob Egholt Sogaard shows that most of the progress toward income inequality in Norway and Sweden happened before 1970, at a time when the two countries had low tax regimes and less redistributive policies. Similarly, the Nordic countries’ social successes were more pronounced in those years. Relative to the rest of the world, for example, they had a greater advantage in life span and child mortality in 1970 than they do today. In other words, the Nordic model arose after those countries were already prosperous and egalitarian.

Today, Nordic countries are even moving away from socialism. Although they do still have high levels of taxation, they have introduced free market regulation. Numerous state-owned enterprises have been privatized, taxes have been reduced, and the generosity of welfare systems curtailed. In the largest Nordic nation, Sweden, Prime Minister Stefan Lofven, a social democrat, has promised to cut the 5 percent highest marginal tax rate. The reduction, according to numerous studies, may stimulate the economy enough that the cut won’t even cause tax revenues to fall. That wouldn’t be the case if the Nordic model worked in the way its champions argue.
 
Top