I was discussing politics with one of my family members and this person stated that Jesus was a communist. I found a definition of communism as " A theory which advocates a state of society in which there should be no private ownership, all property being vested in the community and labour organized for the common benefit of all members; the professed principle being that each should work according to his capacity, and receive according to his wants." I could not respond to him because I have not read enough about Jesus to be able to reply, but the best response I could come up with was that Jesus wasn’t a politician and also the idea of communism wasn’t born until the 1800’s. So I thought I would bring this question here.
The end of the second chapter of Acts indicates that the earliest Christians, living in Jerusalem, practiced a “pure,” voluntary form of communism as it was later defined. Jesus’s focus was far more on man’s relationship to God and how man should behave towards his fellow man in general, including generosity and not laying up treasures on Earth, than it was on any political ends.
Marxism is what dates from the 1800s, and it co-opted the communist idea in the service of a classless state in which all persons theoretically were provided for equally. (What Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, et al., did with it is a quite different story.) Marx, an economist of note, founded it on a Hegelian schtick in which the hoarding of wealth and privilege by the few is counteracted by the revolution of the laboring poor. (He seems to have missed the necessary third item in a Hegelian analysis: the synthesis resulting from any concept’s being confronted by its opposite.)
All Marxists (outside schools of economics) are Communists (with a capital C), but not all (small-c) communists are Marxists.
Is that any help?
Some preliminary thoughts: Jesus would never have forced people to act for the common benefit. He would have encouraged them to do so, and been very happy when they did out of their own legitimately felt sentiment. Somewhat different than the dictatorship of the proletariat. Thus I don’t think he was a classical Marxian Communist–perhaps more of a utopian Socialist.
-Ulterior
How does Marx ignore synthesis? It seems to me that synthesis is the whole point of Marx’s analysis. It’s the conflict between opposing forces of nobleman and merchant that brings about capitalism society as its synthesis, the conflict between the bourgouise and proletariat that brings about socialism as it’s synthesis, and so on.
I dunno… but it seems that the Marxist stuff about “Religion Is The Opiate Of The Masses” would seem pretty incompatible with being a major religious leader… much less a prophet… much less a Messiah…
It’s also worth pointing out that a lot of Canada’s Socialist patriarchs like J.S. Woodsworth and Tommy Douglas were staunch Christians who gave their Socialism a very Christian bent: helping others and instituting legislation to help others was, they felt, doing God’s work.
This musta been the case elsewhere… anybody got other examples?
-Ulterior
Polycarp said:
So let me see if I got this right, communism and Marxism are different?
If so, then, communism in a “pure” sense was practiced during biblical times?
Wang-Ka said:
That was how I responded to him. I said that Jesus did not teach politics and I told him that religion and politics are seperate…Bwahahaha (sorry I forgot which country I am in)
This brings another question. Most people I’ve talked to say that the religious cannot be communist and vice versa. So wouldn’t it be better to say that Marxists cannot be religious, not communists?
Correct. Marxism draws on the communist theories that were floating around in France and other parts of Europe at the time. It also draws on Hegelian historical analysis. Polycarp was incorrect to say that Marx ignored synthesis, though. The progression of societies from one stage to the next is the synthesis, so the conflict between the capitalists and the proles (thesis/antithesis) would result in a synthesis of the communist state and the eventual end of history. He was also influenced by capitalist theory, of course, as well.
Marxism is basically a blend of all of these things, with Hegelian thought producing the structure of historical progression that Marx uses, and he combines that with capitalist theories on the economy and socialist/communist ideologies.
I’m not sure political theory in Jesus’s time and place would have been that sophisticated, especially to a young carpenter. Jesus was mostly interested in telling his community of people to be better. More honest, forgiving, tolerant. I don’t believe he had any interest at all in the organization of society and the allocation of resources.
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 a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
2 can play at that game!
Scripture: Matthew 25:14-30
14 "For it will be as when a man going on a journey called his servants and entrusted to them his property;
15 to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away.
16 He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them; and he made five talents more.
17 So also, he who had the two talents made two talents more.
18 But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master’s money.
19 Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them.
20 And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.' 21 His master said to him, Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.’
22 And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.' 23 His master said to him, Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.’
24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not winnow; 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' 26 But his master answered him, You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sowed, and gather where I have not winnowed?
27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest.
28 So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents.
29 For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.’
Obviously, then, Jesus was a banker.
I gotta admit, I really like that line in verse 15: “to each according to his ability.”
So, not only was Jesus not a Marxist, Marx had to literally twist Jesus’s words backwords to derive his most famous saying!
“To each according to his ability, from each according to his need.” Sounds like a meritocratic capitalist system to me!
The situation where a committee of party leaders assigns what is needed, and who is able, and enforces that decision upon the populace with violence is somewhat different than the view of the faithful Christian.
The Lord knows the difference between what you need, and what you want. He also knows the difference between what you cannot do, and what you would rather not do. And you know that He knows. And you give and take as He has commanded because you know that He is right, not because He will enslave or kill you for not doing it. Of course, we the Christian “workers” screw it up a lot, especially when we get together in big groups, like the Communists. And He, it seems, is unwilling to enslave or kill us, for screwing it up.
So, you see, it’s not all that much alike, and not all that much different.
Tris
Show me the scripture where Jesus seized a man’s property by force, kept a portion as His wage, and then gave the rest to other men He had deemed more needy.
Ah, I see that your understanding of communism is superficial.
Manifesto of the Communist Party, “Proletarians and Communists”, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
Some would consider the threat of eternal damnation in a lake of fire to to be “force”, Lib. And that is what Jesus said was in store for the rich at the gates of Heaven. Please explain the difference between that, and the threat of incarceration in the Gulag.
That’s not what Jesus said.
He said that, because of the tendency of the rich to fixate on earthly treasures and therefore turn from God, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Luke 18:24) He then compared the feat to a camel walking through the eye of a needle.
But when asked for clarification by those who, like you, misunderstood Him, He answered, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.” (Luke 18:27)
It is known that at least one rich man was a disciple of His and in fact provided His tomb: As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. (Matthew 27:57)
Show me the passage in the Bible wherein Joseph of Arimethea goes to Heaven. Nobody said the rich don’t have a sense of nobless oblige, just that if they don’t divest themselves, they go to Hell. I stand by that interpretaion.
Well, if you intend to stand where you are no matter what, there’s not much point in responding, is there? 
But for what it might be worth to you, He was Jesus’ disciple as I’ve already shown. In speaking to His disciples, He said, “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.” (John 14:1-3)