Was jesus a socialist?

[revolutionary student]

I'm not too familar with the history of jesus, but the general idea I get is that he was against prejudice and racism (if he ever existed) and he promoted love and peace. So was he a socialist or even a revolutionary socialist (he must have had some radical ideas to be executed the way he was). What do you guys think?

[Blake's Baby]

'It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven' and 'give up all you have and follow me' certaily express a measure of radical egalitarian sentiment.

There's not enough data to say he 'was' a revolutionary, but he seems to have been believed to be a revolutionary. His early follwers were communists of a sort, and the political and religious adminstration of the day seems to have disliked him and his ideas and followers and actions. But administrations in general don't exactly have a blameless record when it comes 'persecuting/executing the wrong people'.

In the end, impossible to say. All we have are the reports of his followers and some scattered notices of the reactions of the authorities. Neither can be considered top-notch reliable historical sources - one primarily because of bias, the other primarily because of their fragmentary nature.

If all we had to go on in AD3925 for a biog of Lenin was six or seven books by some Stalinists and a few notes about anti-communist trials and witchunts from the American government (to take a crass comparison, but it's not totally invalid) it would be hard to reconstruct what actually happened between, let's say, 1903 and 1924.

[Caj]

If he existed, it's possible he could be described as a utopian socialist in the sense that he advocated classless egalitarianism, as many of the self-described "messiahs" of the time did. However, there was no working class at the time, and socialism was, therefore, an historic impossibility.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Most here would say no but to be honest I really don't care if he was or wasn't. He said some socialistic things but as there is so little evidence of him one way or another it is impossible to tell. I think during the cold war the USSR tried to propagate that he was but such can't be taken at face value.

[escapingNihilism]

you'll lose a lot in translation if you try to blithely, retroactively apply terms across 1800 years.

[Ostrinski]

Perhaps a radical egalitarian, but not a socialist in the way that we understand socialism today.

[Black_Rose]

'It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven' and 'give up all you have and follow me' certaily express a measure of radical egalitarian sentiment.

There's not enough data to say he 'was' a revolutionary, but he seems to have been believed to be a revolutionary. His early follwers were communists of a sort, and the political and religious adminstration of the day seems to have disliked him and his ideas and followers and actions. But administrations in general don't exactly have a blameless record when it comes 'persecuting/executing the wrong people'.


I would say that Confucius would be considered more revolutionary than Jesus, since he traveled itinerantly as a vagrant with a claque of disciples, enjoining local regents to follow his teachings of virtuous, righteous, and benevolent rule, although the essence of Confucian doctrine is reformism. Jesus (and Paul [Romans 13]) implicitly supported the passive acceptance of the legitimacy of Roman Rule, and nothing in their teaching can be construed as endorsing a revolution by ousting terrestrial authorities to replace them with a more just/favorable/competent system or ruler.

I've attended Mass for a few months, and one salient message that the priest gives during the homilies is the Jews were disappointed with Jesus (as the messiah) since he did not intend to deliver the Jews from Roman tyranny; instead Jesus' mission was to emancipate humans from sin. It seems like a nice, politically correct hermeneutic of the Gospel, since it doesn't endorse any contemporary political agenda. (Although next the to the Church bulletins, there was a stack of papers soliciting donations to Rick Santorum during the noon Mass of the Sunday before Palm Sunday. I had the temptation to discard them, and if Father caught me, I would just reply that I should be allowed to place pamphlets criticizing capitalism and US imperialism.)

Note, this is not preaching; I am merely regurgitating what I heard at Mass.

[Blake's Baby]

It's hard to argue that Catholicism today has any conection to the historical Jesus though.

If you wanted to argue relevance to the original, you might be better off going with the church in the 4th century, let's say, when monks like 'the Sicilian Briton' were arguing 'the world is divided into three classes, the rich the poor and those who have enough... it is the few rich who are the casue of the many poor... abolish the rich and there will be no more poor'.

That sort of thinking was gradually suppressed between AD370 and AD418; but it represents I'd say a more authentic radical Christianity than the Church-State accomodation with the late Roman Empire epitomised by figures like Augustine of Hippo, Pope Innocent I and Pope Leo I... which of course predates the Council of Trent (essentially the post-Reformation refoundation of the Catholic Church) by 11 hundred years.

So, in essence, what has Catholicism in the US now, got to do with Jesus 2000 years ago?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Kautsky wrote a materialist history of Christianity which goes through a lot of the conditions at the time that Jesus was supposed to have been around (the so-called Pope of Marxism, Kautsky, argues that it's irrelevant as to if an actual historical Jesus existed or not). It's called the "Foundations of Christianity" and I read it a few years back and it was a really interesting work. I can't remember if he touches on this particular question, it's been a while and I read it for fun (me=dork) so I just read straight through without really "studying" it. At any rate I recommend it for getting a broader view of the significance of Christianity from a materialist view.

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm not too familar with the history of jesus, but the general idea I get is that he was against prejudice and racism (if he ever existed) and he promoted love and peace. So was he a socialist or even a revolutionary socialist (he must have had some radical ideas to be executed the way he was). What do you guys think?
There is no ahistorical set of ideas which we call socialism.
Socialism and communism as real existing movements were born with the ascendancy of capitalist society and refer to a social transformation of exactly this kind of society. At best, you could talk about feudal millenarian socialism, though this would be suspect as well, but to extend it to religious figures such as Jesus Christ would be false IMO.

[Left Leanings]

Many of the teachings and sayings attributed to Jesus in the Bible, would indicate he had egalitarian sentiments. Given that the people then, lived under Roman occupation, and they were no strangers to oppression, it's not too surprising. Oppression has been around a long time, and where it has existed, people have sought to resist it.

Was he a revolutionary? According to the Gospels, no. He was a pacifist, with his advocay of 'turn the other cheek'. Other messianic figures from the time, were rather more firebrand, and advocated violence to resist Roman overlords.

Concerning Jesus, it is hard to determine whether he was a solitary historical figure or not. The main reason being, that there are few historical references to him, outside of Christian apology. So it's highly likely he is a myth, woven out of stories and traditions, that related to more than one actual individual.

There are more independent historical references to the Buddha than Jesus, and the Buddha is a much older figure in the history of world religions.

[Zealot]

No.

He was radical for his time, which he should be credited for, but certainly nowhere near close to being a Socialist as we understand it today.

I wouldn't be so quick to call him a fighter against racism since we know, for example, that he specifically told his disciples not to go among the "gentiles" but only to the "lost sheep" of Israel (Matthew 10). But then there are other verses that seem to show him as an internationalist of some type. There are some verses that show Jesus as the commander of a small guerrilla cell and some that make him appear as a drum-beating hippy. The Bible is a schizophrenic literary composition of sorts, in many places.

Another good point which has already been brought up is that the Bible is a very, very unreliable document that shouldn't even pass as a historical source, let alone a book to base our lives on. Anything the Bible says about Jesus, and basically the entire Bible in general, should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Manic Impressive]

Why is this in history and not in opposing ideologies where it belongs? I might as well start a thread asking if the loch Ness monster was an anarchist.

[Hit The North]

Except Nessy isn't a real, historical character. Oh, wait... :blink:

[magicme]

As presented in the Bible it seems that Jesus was much more concerned with individual salvation (whatever that means) and the coming kingdom than social change. However, when he came back as a ghost and filled his disciples up with himself they all became primitive communists so maybe his dad had a word and sent him back with a more materialistic message for the believers.

Jesus wasn't so good with the economy. 'Look to the birds my son', no thanks, loads of them starve every winter.

But as it goes I think in a post-revolutionary situation Christians will be able to fit in quite happily, there's loads in the New Testament about profiteers being sinful and such.

[ColonelCossack]

I don't think socialism as a coherent theory existed back then... so no. maybe some socialistic features though, but not an actual socialist.

[Franz Fanonipants]

nope.

but he was God.

[Grenzer]

I don't get why people keep bringing this up.

How the fuck could Jesus be a socialist when capitalism wouldn't even exist until more than a thousand years after he died?

[Book O'Dead]

I'm not too familar with the history of jesus, but the general idea I get is that he was against prejudice and racism (if he ever existed) and he promoted love and peace. So was he a socialist or even a revolutionary socialist (he must have had some radical ideas to be executed the way he was). What do you guys think?

I haven't read all the responses to this, so maybe someone already stated what ought to be obvious:

Jesus was NO socialist.

[Book O'Dead]

100 YEARS AGO IN THE PEOPLE
[WAS JESUS A SOCIALIST?]
(THE PEOPLE, Feb. 14, 1897)
The Terre Haute, Ind., RAILWAY TIMES, in its laudable, but untrained anxiety to promote socialism, is in danger of doing more mischief than good. In its issue of the 1st instant it argues extensively in favor of the claim that "Jesus was a Socialist."
In the language of Comrade Jules Guesde, held in the French Chamber recently, and published a few weeks ago in these columns, all the noble hearts and noble minds of the past who have truly felt pity for the oppressed and strove to improve their lot, and above all, all those among them, who, true to themselves, had the manhood to carry their great ideal to the scaffold, may justly be claimed by the Socialists as their traditional precursors, but not as their intellectual ancestors.


Jesus could not be a Socialist. To understand this is to be proof against the many sidetracking allurements that beset the path of the modern and militant Socialist


Socialism is not an aim, it is the means to an object. The object is now, as it long has been, to remove popular, undeserved suffering. The means to that end could not be socialism until material conditions engendered socialist thought. The mere existence of misery is not the material condition precedent for socialist thought. The material condition precedent therefore is the existence of such tools of production as compel cooperative labor, and, therefore, compel the collective ownership of these tools as the means to escape a continued and intensified condition of popular degradation.
Socialism, while certainly animated by the noblest motives of all times, is an economic-political movement that begins and ends with the demand that the machinery of production, which is necessarily operated collectively, shall be as collectively owned. Such a thought could not rise 1,897 years ago for the simple reason that no such machinery of production was then in existence, those being the days, infant days at that, of individual production by small and individual tools.


At that stage of man's career, and so long as the present machine had not yet appeared, popular poverty could not be abolished, for the simple reason that there was not enoughproducible for all. The best that a feeling heart could then do was to transfer to himself the distress of others. Where there is but one blanket and there are two men, one has to go cold. If A. has the blanket and B. is freezing, A. may pity B. and pass his blanket over to him; but then, the cold that B. suffered is not suppressed; it is passed over to A. Such was the nature of the apostolic communities. It could be none other. Today, however, we no longer need to shift misery about, we can abolish it: instead of there being one blanket for two men, there are now four to two; and this is the result of the cooperative labor of men who are, by the very nature of their tools, compelled to work together.


To maintain that Jesus was a Socialist is to ignore the reason why socialism is today a necessary thing. The center of gravity of the great movement of our day is thereby removed from its intellectual basis, where it belongs, to a purely sentimental basis that exposes it to be wrecked by that most dangerous of all elements: the well meaning but untutored.

[daft punk]

Yes, Jesus was a socialist. Of course, socialism would have been impossible in his day, but he was obviously a socialist in spirit, defending the poor and chastising the rich. Also, he has a religious message, or so he believed, and he obviously wanted to die as a religious martyr. Revolutionaries were common,and he didn't want to be just another one of them. So he was careful not to push the politics too far and to keep it just below the god thing in importance. When they tried to trick him, he cunningly backed down from a political confrontation, saying people should pay their taxes. This was simply to focus on being crucified as a religious saviour.

After he died there was a long war between the Jews and Romans which in the long term ended up with the Jews being dispersed around the world.

His disciples lived a communal lifestyle, shunning all possessions and sharing everything.

My dad is very religious but also conservative, so it's easy to chuck in this sorta stuff to undermine his conservatism a bit.


Acts 2:45

New International Version (NIV)

45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.

Acts 4:32

New International Version (NIV)

The Believers Share Their Possessions

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.



"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

Karl Marx
Critique of the Gotha Programme

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
Marx & Engels, Communist Manifesto

[Althusser]

Of course not
http://ericsammons.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/pope-benedict.jpg

[marl]

The Catholic Church isn't exactly the best representation of Christianity.

Jesus may have not been a socialist in the strict sense of the term (it's already been touched upon that there was no real working class in the those days), but, based off his teachings, it's safe to say he'd likely be a socialist today.

[Book O'Dead]

Perhaps the best thing to do is not to claim Jesus was a socialist but instead point out that Marxian socialism incorporates in its doctrines all that is noble, just and righteous of Jesus' sermon on the mount. You know, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth, etc?"

[Nox]

There's virtually no credible evidence to say he even existed. But assuming he did, and the quotations in the Bible can be trusted, then yes.

[cb9's_unity]

A better question may be how compatible the teachings of Jesus are with modern socialism. As others have pointed out, there is certainly a radical egalitarian streak in many of the beliefs attributed to him.

From there the question should be asked whether the teaching of Jesus are more compatible with revolutionary socialism or any form of capitalism? To me it seems difficult to honestly justify a belief in Christ with the enormous wealth held by many of the worlds most important Christians. How would it be possible to accumulate capital while giving your worldly possessions to the needy?

I think there is probably a lot more room for revolutionary socialists and Christians to work together than a lot might think. If we could put aside our respective ontological beliefs, there is a lot of room in which we could both push forward to change material reality in a progressive manner.

[Book O'Dead]

I think there is probably a lot more room for revolutionary socialists and Christians to work together than a lot might think. If we could put aside our respective ontological beliefs, there is a lot of room in which we could both push forward to change material reality in a progressive manner.

The sound of one man with two hands applauding.

[brigadista]

did Jesus actually exist -

[Dave B]

Somebody mentioned Kautsky’s book and perhaps an appropriate link would be the one below.

Where for instance he says;



But their brief remarks, appeals, demands, wishes, all point to the same communistic character of the beginning of the Christian community.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/ch09.htm


I think the question would be better phrased as to whether the early Christians were ‘communistic’ or even ‘communists’ like the shakers for instance in;

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/10/15.htm

Which was ‘prefaced’ by Engels in a letter to Karl as below;


The Teutons are all still very muddled about the practicability of communism; to dispose of this absurdity I intend to write a short pamphlet showing that communism has already been put into practice and describing in popular terms how this is at present being done in England and America. [12]
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_10_01.htm

The Shaker example, as I have learned recently was very important as a seminal example of communism to the to the general communist movement in the early part of the 19th century.

The Shakers actually originated from Manchester circa 1800; must be something in the water.

I wouldn’t suggest, as a stage-ist theorist, that it was ‘practical’ to be a ‘socialist’ in an even pre-feudal society.

In fact from my perspective the question would be absurd.

However there was a sort of agricultural wage labour working class in that part of the world at the time that came about as a result of some peculiar socio-economic changes that happened post 6AD when it became a ‘province’ of the Roman empire.

Which has been discussed fairly recently elsewhere even in a non Marxist context, but I am not an expert on it.

It was a consequence of the peasantry being dispossessed of their own means of production, the land and small farms, and being reduced to wage labour or something.

The idea of wage labour and wages is in fact a recurring theme, often as allegory and metaphor, in the gospel documents themselves.

Kautsky actually argues strongly, almost prejudicially in my opinion, against the historicity of Jesus, but that is not the essential point of his argument.

What he says is that the popularity of any piece of literature or even an ideology can give an indication of the mindset of those who ‘enjoy’ or adhere to it.

And it is a historical fact that it took off or was popular amongst the ‘dispossessed’.

And as a kind of reflection of people’s hopes, aspirations and political concerns; by analysing the ‘literature’ it is possible to gain some ‘sociological’ insight.

And thus, so it goes, that the theme and appeal that runs through the gospel documents about the rich being a bunch of bastards that will go to hell and that the poor are great and are going to go to heaven.

Is a reflection of a sense of a real class hostility.

Whether or not the piece of literature in question is a factual account or just political allegory misses the point. Nobody believes in talking pigs or that the events on ‘Animal Farm’ actually happened in a ‘literal sense’, however for those that understand it, it has a political message and appeal.

Even if you don’t understand the allegory it can still have an appeal.

(I met a Trotskyist once who liked it but didn’t understand the allegory; it was great fun interrogating her about it without giving the game away.)

For what it matters I think the evidence for the actual historicity of some kind of Jesus figure is quite strong and that is the position of some erudite atheists and self described infidels.

Justyn the Martry, an intellectual albeit christian one, writing circa 120 AD seems to have a fairly matter of fact detailed understanding of the basic story.

And more importantly the first written, and really ‘vicious’ attack on Christianity by Celsum, some time before 220 AD, doesn’t question the ‘historicity’ of Jesus.

And prefers to take the piss out of JC’s working class or artisan ‘carpenter’ roots and suggests that his ‘virginal’ mother was in fact a whore and the product of a liason with a Roman soldier.

Something that formed the substance of early Judiac (200-600AD) attacks on Christianity.

There is some debate as to whether that originated from Celsum or whether Celsum had picked it up from the Judiac ‘News of the World’.

There is some other stuff on the subject from Fred below.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/index.htm

This kind of analysis was actually a return to the pre 1845 Feuerbachian position that Karl and Fred adhered to that the essence of Christianity or unadulterated and un-revised Early Christianity was a transformed religious expression of ‘communistic’ social instincts.

An idea picked up from and developed from Darwin’s second book.

[Left Leanings]

A better question may be how compatible the teachings of Jesus are with modern socialism. As others have pointed out, there is certainly a radical egalitarian streak in many of the beliefs attributed to him.

From there the question should be asked whether the teaching of Jesus are more compatible with revolutionary socialism or any form of capitalism? To me it seems difficult to honestly justify a belief in Christ with the enormous wealth held by many of the worlds most important Christians. How would it be possible to accumulate capital while giving your worldly possessions to the needy?

I think there is probably a lot more room for revolutionary socialists and Christians to work together than a lot might think. If we could put aside our respective ontological beliefs, there is a lot of room in which we could both push forward to change material reality in a progressive manner.

I take your point.

There is, after all, The Christian Socialist Movement. And then the liberation theologians of Latin America. But the main issue is, that christian socialists tend on the whole to be pacifists, a good example being Tony Benn, the far-left former Labour MP, and member of the Campaign Group.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I take your point.

There is, after all, The Christian Socialist Movement. And then the liberation theologians of Latin America. But the main issue is, that christian socialists tend on the whole to be pacifists, a good example being Tony Benn, the far-left former Labour MP, and member of the Campaign Group.

yeah and socialist humanists tend to disregard material analysis in favor of liberal lies about human rights and etc.

so what

[Left Leanings]

yeah and socialist humanists tend to disregard material analysis in favor of liberal lies about human rights and etc.

so what

Back to business, after your period of absence, I see :laugh:

[Bostana]

He ain't no capitalist I know that.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Back to business, after your period of absence, I see :laugh:

whatever weaksauce why don't you go fret about darfur or something

[Left Leanings]

whatever weaksauce why don't you go fret about darfur or something

I'm not going to be drawn in. I find you a petty, smart-arsed and counter-productive poster, who was only recently given the bum's rush from here for your antics.

Carry on, an you may well find yourself in the same position again.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Jesus was more anarchist than socialist, he said the people were all the same before god and that god was the only valid form of authority, therefore he was the first anarcho-christian.

[Yuppie Grinder]

We know very little of the historical Christ, and whether or not he existed at all is up to debate. No one knew about communism, socialism, or anarchism 2,000 years ago in Israel. The conditions of western-European industrial capitalism birthed those concepts. I can't see how anyone could seriously answer this question with anything but no.

[Positivist]

I'm Jesus and yes I am a socialist.

[Left Leanings]

I'm Jesus and yes I am a socialist.

Hail! The Second Coming! :)

[BE_]

Yes, Jesus was a socialist. A Stalinist actually.

[Manic Impressive]

It's pretty obvious Jesus was a fascist.

[Ostrinski]

Jesus merely represented the left wing of capital.

[Franz Fanonipants]

jesus was a dawkinsist

[Franz Fanonipants]

I'm not going to be drawn in. I find you a petty, smart-arsed and counter-productive poster, who was only recently given the bum's rush from here for your antics.

Carry on, an you may well find yourself in the same position again.

lol

[seventeethdecember2016]

I'm not too familar with the history of jesus, but the general idea I get is that he was against prejudice and racism (if he ever existed) and he promoted love and peace. So was he a socialist or even a revolutionary socialist (he must have had some radical ideas to be executed the way he was). What do you guys think?
For what it's worth, here is an interview with Gennady Zyuganov(the leader of CPRF) about this subject.
IatoF2H-pnQ

[eric922]

I think there is probably a lot more room for revolutionary socialists and Christians to work together than a lot might think. If we could put aside our respective ontological beliefs, there is a lot of room in which we could both push forward to change material reality in a progressive manner.
I agree, Liberation Theology did a lot of good, I think. I think that religon and socialism can work together to an extent as long as the religion does not seek power over others. On a related note, I think leftists movements in Asia made a mistake by not trying to utilize Buddhism in a similar way Liberation Theology did Christianity.