Socialism has become something of a dirty word in American politics. This has more than a little bit to do with the Red Scares, HUAC and the Cold War. However over the years the word socialist has changed from describing an idea for an economic style to a general something un-American. The irony of this is that the same groups that use the term this way, such as conservative Republicans and Tea Party members, are often the same people who claim to be actively Christian and to be guided by the principles of that religion. And if you read the examples in the New Testament, Jesus Christ is what we would today call a socialist.
Yes, in addition to being a dark-skinned, dark-haired Middle Eastern Jew Jesus advocated what would be considered socialist policies. For those who need a refresher in economics, socialism is defined as the public ownership of the means of production and the goods that are manufactured. This doesn’t mean of course that your food and clothes aren’t yours, what it means is that there isn’t a company that owns farms and produces the food that takes money from the people as payment. The farm, the food, the machines, the end product, all of that belongs to the public in socialism. It also means that, ideally since we’re just discussing a perfect world situation on paper, there would be no need for money or drive for profit. People would work because they are a part of the community and they have to earn their keep, and everyone can claim as much as they need to fulfill their personal life requirements. Additionally the products made would be made because there is a need for them, and the resources would be democratically assigned based on that need and given to those who contributed to the community. If you needed PVC for plumbing and sewage, then until everyone had that basic necessity there would be none given over for toys, DVD players, that sort of thing.
Now socialism goes directly against the old, Puritanical edicts. Ever since the founding of America, and even before then, there was a view held among Christian settlers that came to the U.S. that God would reward you based on your worth and merit. So if you were rich it was because God made you that way and your money, land and property was yours by divine edict. If you were not rich, then it was because you had not pleased God and you had to work harder. It’s a similar view to the divine right of kings, something that no one believes today even if they have a monarchy. Yet in America the idea of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps still reigns fairly supreme, and the myth that anyone can become a multi-millionaire if they work hard enough still exists, despite sociological and historical evidence to the contrary.
But let’s get back to the human manifestation of a divine being for a moment. In his various teachings Jesus made it very clear that helping your fellow man and neighbor was perhaps the most important thing you could do. Love thy neighbor as thyself, the tale of the Good Samaritan and the phrase that says you cannot serve God and Mammon are all examples of the idea that having too much money wasn’t a noble, Christian goal. Indeed, he told those who would listen not to build up treasures on Earth, referring to the passing intangibility of material wealth in the larger, spiritual scheme of the universe. It was important that everyone was fed and clothed, their medical care seen to (as in the Good Samaritan when a wandering barbarian helps a man that was beaten and robbed, left behind by a Levite and a priest who wouldn’t help, taking him to an inn and paying for the cost of a doctor).
Here’s the crux of the issue and it’s where things get tricky. Christianity approves of and applauds the giving of what you have to help your fellow man. Charity is a great virtue, greed a great sin and all that. The New Testament also says, and I quote, “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.” This is a way of saying that even if you don’t like Rome, you pay your taxes because you’re a citizen of the empire. So, as long as you are a citizen you give to the governmet what belongs to the government. What you have after that needs to be enough to give you a comfortable material life, while not neglecting your spiritual life.
All of this, ranging from the fact that socialism is economic and not political (that part is when it becomes communism, which is something different entirely), to the idea that after armageddon all of the nations of the world will be lined up and judged by how they treated the least among them, is leaning pretty heavily into what we would in today’s political climate call socialist. That a good nation is one that feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, cares for the outsider and the prisoner with mercy and understanding is something that, if everyone agreed on it, could potentially bring a consensus on illegal immigration, racism and the necessity of social welfare programs all in one, sound swoop. A pretty far cry from how the devil is supposed to personally administer everything from welfare to medicaid to social security.
“What is Socialism?” by The Socialist Party of Great Britain at World Socialism
“Was Jesus a Socialist? O’Donnell Rushes to Judgment,” by Jerry Newcombe at Christian Post
“Was Jesus a Socialist?” by Nick Tasler at Nick Tasler