Pope Francis undoubtedly has a redistributive economic outlook, and recently advocated for a universal basic income, writing:
“This may be the time to consider a universal basic wage which would acknowledge and dignify the noble, essential tasks you carry out … It would ensure and concretely achieve the ideal, at once so human and so Christian, of no worker without rights.”
Recently, the Pope also warned against religious gatherings in light of COVID-19. This, alongside his redistributive economic views, makes him Literal Stalin.™
Among all this, I am sadly exposed to the “Was Jesus a socialist?” debate. Under Robby’s highly engaged with tweet contains his definitive statement that Jesus was not a socialist, and subsequent pronounced disagreement. “Of course he was! He said it’s easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter heaven!”
Seeing this debate insufferably persist in politics as though it will do anything for either socialists or capitalists inclines me to say something.
For the purposes of cultural influence, Jesus as he is understood in the Bible is relevant to people regardless of faith because of how much Biblical Jesus has influenced society today even if historical Jesus did not exist. So, we can look at the character of Biblical Jesus and explain that he was not a socialist, capitalist, conservative, anarcho transhumanist, posadist 18th wave feminist, or any sort of political ideology people usually ascribe to him.
Even if Jesus had an explicit political view (e.g., socialism or capitalism) it would be quite literally irrelevant to how we should conduct ourselves politically today whether we are religious or not.
My first question is: what use is it to, e.g., socialists and capitalists to try to appeal to a philosophy of Jesus to begin with? The task for socialists or capitalists who believe in their ideological framework is to explain to the general population how, e.g. capitalist production corresponds to their hardships and how socialism can eradicate this problem or vice versa. The use of Jesus in this scenario is an appeal to authority, in a sense: we assert that socialism or capitalism is valuable because a figurehead that people value ascribed to it. If Jesus believes it, so should you!
But this is an unscientific and borderline condescending approach to selling something like socialism (I’m gonna emphasize socialism more, because I see the “Jesus was a socialist” thing much more than the other way around). It would be strange for socialists to want people to support socialism because Jesus wanted it. Instead, truly persuading people to support a different economic system would involve showing them it is within their own interest to do so.
Some on the left seem to think it is useful because it merely “owns” the religious right. It is enjoyable for some leftists to tell conservatives that their hero was actually a leftist (makes for a snappy infographic, too). Again, though, I fail to see how this achieves any socialist goals.
At best, you could say: “you know those things Jesus preached? That can actually only be realized through socialism!”
But ideology doesn’t work this way. When someone ascribes to an ideology like capitalism very strongly, you are not going to convince them to stop ascribing to it by claiming it is philosophically incompatible with another ideology they ascribe to. In fact, they will be much more willing to craft a counter-narrative that shows why you are wrong, and why these ideologies actually are compatible rather psychologically terrorize themselves with disillusionment introduced by smug people they already despise.
(Shortly after, Abe had his student loans forgiven after receiving a Pell Grant for operating a small Olive Oil business in a disadvantaged neighbourhood!)
Assuming the existence of Jesus in order to sell socialism is a losing battle on all fronts.
What about hypothetical, Biblical Jesus?
One of the more famous “Jesus was a socialist” claims starts with a citation of Matthew 19:24:
“Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Another so-called “socialist Jesus moment” was driving businessmen out of the temple in Matthew 21:12-17.
However, this does not actually say anything about support for socialism. Nowhere does Jesus, here, talk about the rich person’s relationship to production nor does he propose changing the structure of production. He is merely making a moral claim against excess wealth. This might make the case for charity, but it does not, on its own, make any sort of case for socialism.
Socialism, in other words, is not equivalent to asceticism (as I have written about before). Socialism involves restructuring peoples’ relationship to production and altering who controls the means of production. In other words, it involves changing who is in command of what is produced. Saying that obscene wealth is immoral is a cultural critique that is certainly compatible with socialism, but it is compatible with non-socialist systems as well.
Further, if you read about Jesus turning over the sellers’ tables in the temple, you’ll soon realize that his opposition concerned using the church for purposes other than prayer. In other words, he wasn’t condemning selling things for profit; he was lashing out at the improper use of a holy site.
The most telling passage to me on this issue, however, is Mark 12:17. Jesus famously says to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and render unto God what is God’s. Yeah, Jesus wants you to pay your taxes. And?
I think there’s more to this here, and I think that the depiction of Jesus’ life along with later theology of those such as Augustine of Hippo, articulates it well. The point is that Christianity is not meant to give direction on what the government ought to look like, nor does it give the same kind of juridical direction that Islam and Judaism do. Rather, Christianity has a strong focus on the otherworldly. Augustine famously writes that justice cannot exist in a world where God is not the ruler, and numerous parts of the Bible have claimed that we cannot see God on earth (e.g. John 1:18, I Timothy 6:16). As such, there is nothing in Christianity that dictates people ought to make teachings of the church legally enforceable (those such as Augustine believe it is not possible for God to rule on earth).
That is not to say that Christians have not tried to make things aligned with Christian beliefs legally enforceable; however, it is to say that there are not certain policies that Christianity necessitates, nor economic systems. Rather, from what I have gathered from Christianity, you are supposed to accept whatever government you have within reasonable limits, engage in private charity on a personal level, and live for both this world and the next. It is not only that Christianity does not call for socialism, but that it actually does not necessitate it at all. Christians themselves can fight for socialism and be informed by their Christianity to do so, but none of this equates to needing to be a socialist to be a Christian.
But really, it shouldn’t matter
Let’s say Jesus was actually a socialist. Let’s say that the Beatitudes said “Blessed are they who get the workers to own the means of production.” It still wouldn’t matter. It still wouldn’t make sense for any serious leftist to go: “Yeah actually Jesus was a radical middle eastern man that fought for socialism” to right wingers and think they are accomplishing anything. It’s not going to make a right winger go “wow, you’re right… I think I’ll be a socialist now.” If anything, they’re going to be annoyed that a self-righteous onlooker is telling them how to practice their faith. They are also going to tell you you are reading it wrong or that it was translated wrong. This is how politics works.
In general, I would discourage attempting to further any political ideology that tries to solely imitate an exact record of what a figure in the past has said or written. Yes, even if it’s Karl Marx, even if it’s Jesus, etc. It’s great to take ideas, think about them, and even have them rationalize things in the world around you. But at the end of the day, you still need to pay attention to the unique circumstances of every era. The fact that a special person said something should never give us reason to believe it is automatically true, nor does it mean their framework can be used as a one-size-fits all, cookie cutter framework for all all practices in all eras.
So, I am very ready for this debate to end. Yes, religion is meaningful to people. And yes, connecting your political project with what people find meaningful is great, too. But when it comes to what Jesus’ political beliefs are, there’s nothing beneficial to be gained by speculating what kind of government he (if he existed) would have supported. People will support your movement if you can show how it will make them materially better off; there’s no need to complicate it all the way to this.
Well said Mila! It strikes me as odd how self-described socialists tend to revert to appeals to authority to try and sell socialism to liberals/centrists/conservatives/libertarians/etc. Socialists should position socialism as the best political and economic system for workers, who are the vast majority of people on this planet, and to show that socialism is the only positive and functional economic system in the face of climate catastrophe and economic disparities.
Posting a picture of Einstein/Dr. MLK Jr./Nelson Mandela with a caption indicating they were socialists isn't going to do anything to convince anyone who isn't already convinced that socialism is good, it is just an exercise in owning the libs. Ideas should be engaged with on their own merit, not who's part of the fan club. But anyways, really well written, thanks so much for this piece!