Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Bible and Communism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I have a question, something I have been thinking about.

I once came on this verse in the Bible:

Acts 4:32-37

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. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

If I take this literally would one be able to say that the bible promotes communism?

Edited by Superman123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I take this literally would one be able to say that the bible promotes communism?

The early Christian communities were communistic, absolutely. Even better than the material you quote is the part, also in Acts, about the Christian couple who sell some possessions and don’t contribute all the proceeds to the community. They’re struck dead on the spot.

I went to a Catholic High School (not by choice, I assure you) run by the Marist brothers, and in social studies classes they taught that communism is the moral ideal, and as proof they would say just look at us, your teachers. The brothers lived communistically. It was pretty ironic since most of the students were Cuban, thus the children of exiles from communism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to a Catholic High School (not by choice, I assure you) run by the Marist brothers, and in social studies classes they taught that communism is the moral ideal, and as proof they would say just look at us, your teachers.

When I read "Marist" as in "Marist poll" I always do a doubletake until I realize the X is missing and it's not "Marxist." Though from what you are telling us it's not far from the truth anyway. (To be sure I think Andrew Bernstein teaches at Marist college.)

As long as I am hijacking this thread with wordplay, here's a joke that went the rounds at the State Department at the time of the Falklands War. (Oh, boy I am dating myself...)

What do you call an Argentinian Communist?

A Gaucho Marxist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question, something I have been thinking about.

I once came on this verse in the Bible:

If I take this literally would one be able to say that the bible promotes communism?

No, that passage describes charity (and altruism), not communism. In communism, there is no private property, to sell from time to time and give to the needy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If I take this literally would one be able to say that the bible promotes communism?"

No. Religious communities, especially those who take a vow of poverty (Franciscans, for example) live a communist-style structure, but it is not meant to extend to those outside the community.

"I went to a Catholic High School (not by choice, I assure you) run by the Marist brothers, and in social studies classes they taught that communism is the moral ideal, and as proof they would say just look at us, your teachers."

What idiots. And they certainly weren't following Church teaching -- the Vatican finally had to crack down on this kind of teaching ("liberation theology") by stating that is was not in accord with the gospels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialism is the redistribution of resources in a formerly capitalist society. Whether it is used to refer to the process originally described by Marx, that would take a capitalist society through several steps, towards a final stage he called communism, or the democracy driven redistribution schemes of modern day socialists that don't actually have a specific endgame, that is what socialism is.

Communism, on the other hand, has several meanings:

1. the final stage in Marxist theory, as described by Marx.

2. the idea Leninists added to Marxist theory, by which a Communist Party is established (temporarily) to lead the workers through the redistribution process described by Marx. No relation with the first meaning, they just used the same word because they felt like it.

3. any social system, whether established as a result of the socialist process or not, in which all property (and sometimes more than just what we would think of as property (i.e. wives, slaves, etc in Plato's version) is shared and commonly owned (i.e. Plato's politics is the most extreme form of communism, the society anarcho-communists hope would be established through anarchy is communism, etc.)

4. the political systems of countries like Vietnam, the PRC, etc, which are referred to as communist by their own leadership, modern commentators, media, etc, even though they are in reality a mix between capitalism and Marx's idea of communism. These countries have all long abandoned Marxism, and, other than not having democracy and freedom of speech, are very similar to western countries. So the differentiation of Communism vs. Capitalism makes no real sense. It's idiotic, but it is used, so I might as well add it to this list.

But, no matter which of those meanings one might use, it is clear that socialism is not the same thing as communism. If we build on the above definitions, the difference between a socialist and a communist also becomes clear. A socialist is someone who is in favor of redistributing wealth (Obama, Romney are examples of socialists). A communist these days is either 1. someone in favor of establishing communism (eradicating even the notion of property, abolishing all money, etc. ), 2. any member of a Communist Party, in China, Vietnam, etc., who does pretty much the same thing as Obama or Romney, but does it not while pretending to be for "moderate capitalism," but instead by pretending to be for "moderate communism" (both idiotic terms). Like I said, I don't agree with calling these people communist, just as I don't agree with calling Romney a capitalist, but they call themselves that, and so does almost everyone else.

P.S. To link all this to the actual subject of the thread: What the Bible describes could be construed as socialism, if it was done by force, and on the level of a whole society. But it's not, what's described here is just charity, not socialism. And it's not communism, because what is being described is a redistribution process, not the final stage, where there no longer is any private property, or any need to redistribute/give anyone anything.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that Jesus didn't really think that secular things mattered at all. The communism of Jesus was more of a matter of not people being distracted by a life of production OR aquisition. In being productive or parasitic one is incapable of living with god (entertaining full time delusions). Tolstoy thought much across the same lines and wanted humanity to voluntarily move to this state world wide.

The difference between this and the various types of communism is initial means and the ultimate ends. Anarchists would do this through revolution (force), and the stated reason for avoiding capitalist production is to reduce alienation (spend more time with community and stuff, do more hobbies, be lazy).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...