The first Christians were socialist, so why aren't you?

The first Christians were socialist, so why aren't you?

Your understanding of Christianity as being a government and not a religion is idiotic.

Humans are smart, so why aren't you?

>this thread again

The first Christians didn't even believe in Jesus, so why do you?

>pic related

what is leviticus

>Richard Carrier

Jesus didn't steal from anybody, so no, he wasn't a commie

catholic server /bkXHBgq

>venezuela
>communism
/thread

read marx's alienation theory, the socialists didn't steal, the capitalists steal
workers are alienated from their reason for working by the capitalist mode of production. They don't work for embitterment of themselves, their community, or the sheer pleasure of accomplishment. They work for wages. They don't control the work they do, how their work is used, when or how long or where they work, who benefits from their work, or the goals they are working towards. The bourgeoisie controls those things. They are estranged from their species essence.

By seizing the means of production and redistributing the profits we are at once 1. removing a parasitic middleman and 2. reuniting workers with their work.

>''The Kingdom is not of this world''
Jesus and true christians are apolitical. They don't bring their religion in politics except for its morality and ethics, which is more closely tied to monarchism, theocratism and libertarianism than to socialism and marxism rhetoric.
>inb4 give to the poor
Willingly give to the poor*, using intermediaries for charity and good actions is for degenerates who want to squander ressources

Because I am a Muslim.

>That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right

Saying something vague, as pretending that it proves your point, is a very popular but idiotic way of being stupid.
I could have done better as well.
Here's how it works:
You state your objective facts, tie them together with logic, and state your conclusion.
Fact: Socialism is the government ownership or control of the means and distribution of production.
Fact: Christianity is a religion and not a government.
Ergo, Christianity is not socialism, because it is not a government.
See? Easy.
It's like the difference between dropping a coin you earned as a capitalist into the blind man's tin cup. That's not socialism because the donor is not the government.

Because I believe in Pepe.

>the capitalists steal
Capitalism is based on the government guaranteeing and defending the individual's property rights, Op.
Marx's thesis is idiotic. He simply omitted any facts that debunked his "Muh Jews should run the world" thesis.

Wrong, it promoted individual charity, not forced redistribution of wealth.

Yes. Because first century christians followed an earthly economic utopic idea first created in the 19th century.

Wow, I didn’t know that the first Christians were dialectacal materialists who believed that there needed to be a transition state between capitalism and communism.

Socialism itself can hope to exist only for brief periods here and there, and then only through the exercise of the extremest terrorism. For this reason it is secretly preparing itself for rule through fear and is driving the word “justice” into the heads of the half-educated masses like a nail so as to rob them of their reason… and to create in them a good conscience for the evil game they are to play.

He didn't starve people to death and then said it wasn't real Socialism.
Back to leftypol.

>Richard Carrier

Jesus actually fed people

The Right is satanic, inherently anti-Christian. You've stolen and bastardized our Lord for your own fascist cause.

>there are people so hopelessly ignorant that they actually believe this.

Parties switched in the 60s

Jesus was a fag and so are you commie

Socialism is as similar to Christianity as it is to Capitalism because there is only one common thread between them which is they adress the question of distributing wealth to the poor.

OP is so retarded if he went to Africa he'd lower the averege IQ of the continent.

NEIN, ich bin eine Sozialist

>Parties switched in the 60s
That almost happened in the UK too.

The left-wing Labour party under Blair basically became conservatives who liked spending money a lot, and the right-wing Conservatives are now virtue-signalling SJW cucks who couldn't organise a Brexit in a brewery

bump

>the capitalists steal
Then become a capitalist and pay the workers 20% more.
Hint: you'll most likely go bankrupt

Probably not SJWs as can be evidenced by scripture but also probably not like the self-congratulatory neocon apologists either.

So was Hitler.

first christians were straight out communists. they not only killed Sapphira and Ananias for not bringing all their wealth into the common hoard, but felt the need to publicize it in their book so others can take heed (and claim it was the Holy Spirit that killed them, and if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell).

The first American settlers were socialists. They thought it was the best way to live according to their understanding of Christian teachings.

Half of them starved to death in the first winter and they were reduced to having to eat their dead. This was AFTER the indians showed them the easiest crops to grow, the easiest fish to catch, and the easiest animals to hunt.

So the next spring, the American colonists decided to add in a little bit of what they considered to be modern liberty, that is, to grant each person their couple of acres of land to do anything they wanted with--- grow food, rent to other members of the community, sell to indians, whatever, and they had the biggest boom of production beyond imagining. They had so much food after the first fall harvest that they couldn't preserve it all nor ship it all back to Great Britain for selling, so they threw a giant feast and invited the indians over to say thanks for helping them that first year. And they still had food left over to compost through the winter.

Socialism will always fail in large groups. It can succeed in small groups, as long as the group is mindful to make sure everyone does their part through public shaming and public awareness.

>Socialism will always fail in large groups.

Not in the era of supercomputing and global networks.

Except that a factory worker whose job is to screw caps onto toothpaste labor is not worth very much.

Marxist theory really only applies to what we'd consider artisan work in the modern era. A job where a worker goes and gets the wood, then creates an entire chair with it. Now his labor equals the final product.

Consider the people that make the gasoline tank for an automobile. It takes 32 such persons in the typical factory process, starting from the collection of the incoming sheet metal, cutting it, stamping it, further cutting it, treating it, watching over it as it goes through the weld robot, watching over it as it goes through the major treatment robot, watching over it as it goes through the final 16 robots. That produces a final product that a robot, supervised by a human, then places into the outgoing order palettes going on to the car factory. Now how much money should each worker get? Especially the guys who do nothing but watch over the ROBOT that does the work? Should the robot get a share of the money? They are doing most of the work in the product involved, with a "middleman" of a human overseeing them.

A cashier at Wal-Mart does not deserve 1% of the store's revenue just because 1% of its income flowed through their hands in a year. All they are doing is "shipping and handling". Hell, you have to bag your own purchases, and they can be replaced with self-check out lines. Should the CUSTOMER get that 1% share if they are a frequent customer?

Implying it will happen in a communist country

I am guessing you are thinking that the super computers will be the active force deciding what to make, how much, and where it should go? And then, what, offer a wage of appropriately balanced value for the work done so the workers feel like they are being paid a fair wage for their contribution to the final product and its "intrisnic" value?

That sounds very similar to capitalism, my friend, where a company decides it wants to make 1,000 widgets in a year, creates a process to make it, and then pays workers what it considers a reasonable wage for the work, based on how many people have the ability to do the work. Of course, capitalism pay people wages in exchange for their actual time spent working, rather than paying them wages based on how much value added they put in. The owner(s) takes all the risk of making a product that costs too much to sell on the market, of having the market collapse because of a new product or outside event that shuts the market down, etc etc etc.

And doesn't an employee owned business result in everyone earning whenever the company earns? Where does employee owned businesses fail to live up to sharing the company's wealth with its workers?

If I own all the farmland and leave you without a job or source of food, do you really have a "choice" when I "invite" you to come work on my farm? Oh, and by the way if you take any food or try to set up a farm of your own, I'll send armed goons to come and imprison you.

So yeah, how's that a choice?

There isn't enough farmland for every family to run their own farm, so some people have to be own farms and other people have to do something else

So, you cannot answer and set up a bad strawman.

The bad strawman is this: There is more than enough arable land in the world for every human being to have enough of it to grow food for himself and provide for himself, year round.

Add in the other food sources we have, such as fishing, and alternative farming methods that we know work, such as green grow buildings, and you are left with no argument to begin with.

So please try again with a real answer. If you don't know, just say you need to think about it more or you need to research it more. I will only laugh at you for a little way.

I understand people being ATTRACTED to socialism. Most of us grow up in a socialism, we just aren't consciously aware of it. This socialism is called: family. Your parents are the state, and they control everything. They provide everything. You earn whatever they decide you should earn (allowance). You do whatever work they decide you should do (chores). You just enjoy the ride.

After a certain point, you might be allowed to go outside the family and work part time. Or maybe you have to work in the family business (ie, resteraunt, mom-pop business, whatever). Then you finally get grown and out of the house, and now you got to worry about everything.

The ultimate utopia for most people is to live a life that is as simple and happy as when they were growing up. Most families manage to treat each other decently for most of the time you are together. So why wouldn't we want to extend that to a larger scale? That is to say--- scale it up.

The problem with scaling up your little family is now you have over 300 million siblings (if you are an American whose country goes completely socialist) and your parents don't actually give a fuck about you. And that's the difference between socialism working when it is just you and your family, and socialism failing you when it is applied on a large, macro scale. Cause you go from multiple people caring for u to only u caring for u.

I would welcome it if you read the bible

Christianity is incompatible with any kind of materialism.

>Oh, and by the way if you take any food or try to set up a farm of your own, I'll send armed goons to come and imprison you.
the exact analogy of this happens every time someone tries to start a business.