jesus and communism

[brayen]

What about people who thing that jesus was a communist??

[Paula Marx]

They are right. Jesus for Jews is the same some partisan is for Yugoslavians - big patriot who died for fatherland and his nation following the way of love, brotherhood and unity.
Catholics have deformed everything in the Bible.

[Jimi4444]

The early Christian sects were communist in consumption, but not production. Not until capitalism and the industrial revolution, can we talk about genuine communism.

[Christopher Hill]

The early Christian sects were communist in consumption, but not production. Not until capitalism and the industrial revolution, can we talk about genuine communism.

It seems that many religious sects support or have supported communist systems in the past, the LDS (Mormon) church for example once worked under the Law of Consecration which was communist in consumption and in production, the problem being that the decision making power was in the hands of the church and not the workers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_consecration

[Jimi4444]

 
[/quote]
It seems that many religious sects support or have supported communist systems in the past, the LDS (Mormon) church for example once worked under the Law of Consecration which was communist in consumption and in production, the problem being that the decision making power was in the hands of the church and not the workers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_consecration
[/quote]

Communism, in the genuine sense that we mean it hasn't been achieved yet. Where the working class takes control of the means of production and slowly wither away the state until property relations are no longer needed. So by this, no they never achieved communism of production, and they couldn't.

[JJM 777]

The first years of the early church in Jerusalem began by some wealthy people selling what they had, under no obligation (so they had the choice not to sell and still retain their status in the church) to give to the poor. It may have resulted in a kill-your-milking cow effect, anyway the letters later in NT (to churches across the Mediterranean coast) talk about collecting aid to the poor church in Jerusalem.

At some point they noticed that some people ate like gluttons and drank like drunkards at the free dining table of the church, while those who arrived last were left nothing. So they appointed "deacons" to all churches, whose job was to reasonably ration the food and other means of living to church members. Some Leftists, especially the Anarchist wing, theorize that rationing will not be necessary in Communism, because people will somehow start thinking and behaving unselfishly. I don't believe in miracles generally, neither in this miracle specifically: I believe that the glutton effect is a universal phenomenon, and rationing will be necessary both because of equality, limited (rationed) supply of goods at a certain location and moment of time, to protect risky mass-consumers from destroying their own health, and to avoid unreasonable wasting of economical and natural resources.

[Christopher Hill]

It seems that many religious sects support or have supported communist systems in the past, the LDS (Mormon) church for example once worked under the Law of Consecration which was communist in consumption and in production, the problem being that the decision making power was in the hands of the church and not the workers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_consecration
[/quote]

Communism, in the genuine sense that we mean it hasn't been achieved yet. Where the working class takes control of the means of production and slowly wither away the state until property relations are no longer needed. So by this, no they never achieved communism of production, and they couldn't.
[/quote]
What I meant was that the production was gauged to consumption, the issue being that the working people really had no direct control but rather were expected to relinquish their possessions "to god", it seems that many religious movements have had similar ideas.

[Friedman]

I love how modern "socialists" scrapped the only redeeming aspect of the ideology by idolizing religious figures like Jesus or Buddha.

Seriously what happened to you guys? To the sacking of cathedrals? The hatred for the clergy?

Aww, I miss George Orwell.

[Paula Marx]

Catholics, who hate idolarty and idols, stole the religion from Jews and made Jesus the son of God. I learn Catholicism for 8 years and I will never understand them.

It's really hard to be a good believer (in the religion) and ideologist. It's almost impossible to make the good "distribution" inside you, because religion is dogma and ideology is not.

[Jimi4444]

I love how modern "socialists" scrapped the only redeeming aspect of the ideology by idolizing religious figures like Jesus or Buddha.

Seriously what happened to you guys? To the sacking of cathedrals? The hatred for the clergy?

Aww, I miss George Orwell.

Did you come on here just to post complete nonsense? What is wrong with showing Christians their revolutionary side to their religion?

[Friedman]

I love how modern "socialists" scrapped the only redeeming aspect of the ideology by idolizing religious figures like Jesus or Buddha.

Seriously what happened to you guys? To the sacking of cathedrals? The hatred for the clergy?

Aww, I miss George Orwell.

Did you come on here just to post complete nonsense? What is wrong with showing Christians their revolutionary side to their religion?
[/quote

There is nothing revolutionary about Christianity.

If you're so fond of Marx then I suggest you read his critique of hegel's philosophy of right.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

[caesarscook]

There is nothing revolutionary about Christianity.

If you're so fond of Marx then I suggest you read his critique of hegel's philosophy of right.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

Yeah, I have a feeling you didn't understand a word of that.  What Marx is saying is that religion arises from very real material conditions.  You actually left out the earlier portion of this quotation, the "opium of the masses" part, the reference to the sigh of the oppressed creature, etc. etc.  This is the crucial portion. 

In his Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right (which I somehow doubt that you've read in its entirety, and thus your haughty tone comes off somewhat empty), Marx was actually criticizing a very specific philosophical trend present in Germany at the time, called the "German critics of religion."  Marx actually is writing in opposition to this group, which I think totally escapes you.  The German critics of religion argued that the problems of society could be traced to religion.  Marx says that, no, the existence of religion itself can be explained due to problems and contradictions arising out of society itself, that religion is "the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world," etc. 

He posits that, if you get rid of the conditions which feed religion, religion will probably wither away, robbed of its material base.  As we like to say, if you disagree, that's fine.  Let's work to make life more tolerable for the majority of the people of the world in this life, and after that, we can argue all we like about a life after death. 

And while we're making reading lists, I'll make some "suggestions" for you, as well.  You should perhaps read Karl Kautsky Foundations of Christianity (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/index.htm), and Engels' On the History of the Early Christians (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/index.htm) or his writing on the Book of Revelations (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/religion/book-revelations.htm).  Read those (and while you're at it, you should maybe try reading the rest of Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right) and get back to us.