Talk:Christian communism/Archive 2

Christianity and capitalism
OK. I know this one is really going to get you Christian communists going. But this one is also based on W. Cleon Skousen's book, The Naked Communist. It is legitimate. But I know you don't like it. It doesn't fit your philosophy. Well there it is. Same rules apply as in the free will section. I did not include the entire biblical reference, due to Nikodemos remarks. But what do you expect? The Christian communist argument is completely founded on two biblical references in Acts that are misinterpreted anyways. The only way to challenge that is to refer to other biblical references, but to do it using legitimate books, article, and other media. Again, the article is nowhere near a size that calls for separating it into two articles. (Gaytan 16:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC))


 * Please assume good faith, and please stop being so adversarial. It is legitimate, but again, it exactly depends on which communism you mean. Almost all the anti-communist literature assumes that communism is a highly coercive system that infringes upon individual rights, and you say that voluntary communism is not called communism, but "communalism". Firstly, "communalism" is just a wider branch, or at least, a euphemism for actual communism. The only coercion is pressure upon others to produce, and to lend peer support, because of things like growth theory. It does not forcibly take away the products of labour, and at worst, is suspicious or expels (excommunication, if you wish) those who hoard wealth, or acts suspicious, a manner akin to shunning or ostracism (we should avoid evil anyway), but welcome those who are willing to repent. It does not forcibly take away the products of their labour, but pressure itself creates order (see anarchist law) while remaining voluntary.
 * Excommunication for not sharing one's wealth appears to be much more than just pressure. I agree that at some point, after the Second Coming of Christ, we will all live in a communal society, where the people will share their wealth freely, not by force. And Christ will inspire the poeple by His Spirit to encourage the people to spread their wealth; He will not pressure them to do so. The difference between many anti-communists Christians and Communist Christians is that Christian communists believe that they can institute this kind of society in their own power, the power of mankind; this is impossible. While many people today may be willing to lead such communal lives, it can at most only achieve the building up of small communal societies. It cannot be done on such a large-scale as to encompass all of humanity or an entire nation. This can only occure when Jesus Christ returns. And even then, it will only occur because Christ will have already destroyed all the wicked who would not be willing to lead such lives. The probationary time of all humanity will have ended. During that probationary period on earth, all people will have had their chance to repent, using their free will. After that time is over, they will have decided for themselves, using their own free will, that destruction would be their end. Thus, Free Will, is kept intact.


 * I will leave your reference to Anarchism on the page. I see it as too much trouble to try to remove it. Unless of course others agree that it degrades the flow of this article. (Gaytan 21:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC))


 * Yes, but not everyone manages to get to heaven. Christian communists are not trying to achieve a society on their own merit, but rather dislike the attitudes of the present society, and the worldly attitude of money. Shunning is a voluntary act done by other individuals (ie. individuals have the right to withdraw the comforts of the products of their labour to an individual who won't labour themselves, although people might try to reform them). It is precisely because the power of human rulers is flawed. It can be done as communal societies, but communal societies that do not recognise a "nation". Christianity does not take place within the superficial concept of nationality, or ethnicity, or region. It spreads everywhere. Therefore, a Christian community grows likewise, without regard for political boundaries, because political boundaries are *superficial*. It can take place both as a commune-sized society or one that is rapidly growing, or a collection of such communities. No, it cannot encompass a whole nation, because it does not try to take over nation. Rather, it tries to change as many lives as possible. Excommunication was only an extreme example, basically it does not mean that people are forced to give up the products of their labour wantonly. Just as we might try to make drug addicts rehabilitate, we might not give them 50 dollars at the start because there is a high chance of misuse. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 01:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Gaytan, I urge you to stop being so confrontational. When have I not edited this article with a fair regard for your views and arguments? Yes, of course we have different political views, but we are both editing the article for the purpose of improving it, and, if you will remember, we are both Christians.


 * Please read my comments further above. Also, please note that you are making an important assumption in talking about communism and force: You assume that people own private wealth first, and then they are forced to share their wealth. This may (or may not) happen in the few years of transition to a communist society, but it will not happen once communism has been established. After all, a person born in communism never had any private wealth in the first place. They are not forced to give up anything - they grow up in a society where everything is already shared. They would have to use force themselves if they wanted to take away part of that shared wealth and keep it for themselves. A transition from capitalism to communism involves no more or less force than a transition from communism to capitalism. If force is what concerns you, then you are concerned with the transition from one system to another, not with any system in itself. -- Nikodemos 22:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The transition issue is exactly what anti-communist Christians so greatly fear. Communist Christians like you all, appear to breeze over the transitional period but this is the period that is so critical in establishing a communist society. While I focus on the transition, you focus on the Utopia that communism tries to create after the transition. That is all fine and good, but you cannot get to this communist Utopia without figuring out how to get people to lovingly share their wealth. Anti-communist Christians point to Christ for this; we believe He and His Spirit are the only way that people will lovingly share their property; government can not pressure, force, or deceive the people into doing this, that would not be Christian-like. And, like I said already, Christ will do this only after the wicked have been destroyed. Those remaining will have the heart capable of forming this type of society. Natalinasmpf clearly advocates a anarchistic communism. So I understand how proponents of that ideology can argue that their communism will maintain free will. On the other hand, Marxism/Leninism promotes the idea that a strong central government must be in place to introduce communism into society; this is where free will is thrown out and trampled upon.

Nikodemos gives the example of a car above. If the law on propert is changed, the use of the car would then be controlled by the community. You conveniently forget to mention that the individual's free will has been overrun by the will of the community. If I own a car and communal property laws are instituted today, I can have my car borrowed from me in order to lend to someone else without my permission. The law in my mind is private property. I will have had my free will overruled by the community. Anyone who was happy with the law of private property will be forced to share his property against his will. There is no way around this. It is not as easy as just changing the writing on some paper like Nikodemos said. This will cause battles, especially in places like the USA and even Mexico, where private property is revered by the people. I believe that communism can only be instituted by force, or revolution, just as Marx said. I vehemently oppose Marx and his philosophy, but if communism really excites you, revolution is the only way to go. You know, Marx did say that the last capitalist must be hung by the rope he manufactured. Aside from this, productivity will greatly decline as well, since individuals will now realize that you can get something for nothing. Just look at welfare beneficiaries all over the world. In the USA, I have firsthand knowledge of this due to my property rental business and, shameful to admit, family members who abuse the system.

So now, I ask both of you a cut and dry question. How can this type of society be implemented successfully without discarding free will? Please describe in detail the transition process for both of your views. Don't give me that discussion on how great this type of society can and will be. Tell me how communists plan to get there without robbing free will. My point is that by man alone (anarchist communism, Marxism, Leninism, govermental legislation), the general, free, all-encompassing sharing of wealth is not possible without destroying free will. Perhaps one of you can enlighten me. And Nikodemos, don't threaten edit to my work. If you have a good reason to edit my work than do it. But I will make sure that it was done properly and fairly. (Gaytan 15:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC))


 * But now you have majoritarianism; and that's different issue. Christian communists reject a lot of Marxist-Leninism, if not all. Christian communists are progressive, aiming to recruit people to change their ways, a little as a time, just as the best way to convert people is not by taking over a state and forcing everyone to convert, or crashing planes into buildings in order to terrorize the population into submission, but through wilful conversion. After all, it is a well known fable that persuasion is better than force. Furthermore, you may have your so-called private property, but then, the community still has a right to withdraw their support of you, or exclude you from benefits, if they perceive you to be non-cooperative. Of course, allowing oneself to eat with thieves and criminals (as Jesus did), in order to influence them, or to change their ways does not mean letting their ways permeate or pervert a higher way. Anyone who was happy with the law of private property can leave. After all, they do not feel like sharing their part in God's community, so why should we force it upon them? True communism is instituted by conversion. You see, if the majority of a government decides not to enforce private property, (ie. by quitting, or refusing to govern), then that is a passive act. The government is not forcing it upon them, they just refuse to act. In essence, the state has been dissolved, presumably to be replaced by a new, and better order. But even besides that, if the majority of a society decided not to support an institution, then the minority who did support that institution will have to break away if they want that institution still. If the entire government resigned, you cannot force them to go back to their posts - that would be the ultimate violation of free will. Transition is to be achieved by conversion, and living out the Christian way of life, bit by bit. In any case, Christian communism is an ideal to be worked towards. For example, until we die we cannot be as righteous as Christ, but we still have to imitate Him. Similarly, we may never achieve a perfectly stateless society until He returns, but we can cast off what is in our ability. After all, we can form communities within ourselves, and perform outside transactions still by money, but increasingly our internal transactions without money become more and more, and the external transactions with money become less and less, as the community expands. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 06:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. I am a realist. You guys are obviously thinking with your head in the clouds. We have so much evil in this world, it is ridiculous. A small, communal society may work initially, but it will not survive, and it definitely will not grow much unless God is at the center of it; in my opinion, this will not happen until the 2nd Coming of Christ. Look at the history we have put up on this article so far. None of the communities who tried to establish communal living and sharing of property ever prospered. Whether you agree with these nations'specific politics or not, China, Cuba, USSR, Korea and others, acommunist utopia was never achieved. It is unreal to believe this can happen by man's power alone. These communist countries have only persectuted their own people, as can be seen by a study of their own history. Again, I am a realist. Look at the USA for example, how many people claim to be Christian? I believe more than 80% claim to be adherents to this faith. How many of them are actually active in their faith (I would define this by how many people actually pick up a Bible and seriously read it at least a couple times a week and pray daily)? I would go so far as to say it is as low as 5-10% of the nation (this is base off a view of everyone I come into contact with on a daily basis). In Europe it is even worse. Try this experiment yourselves where you live and honestly tell me how many people you com into contact with are actively practicing Christianity? Active Christians in Europe are despised and treated as idiotic, religious zealots. There is not one Western nation with leaders who will dare mention God in any speech; something that was so common not long ago. You cannot remove the blame from Christians for this. We have let this happen. We have voted for politicians who seek power and "filthy lucre" rather than statesman who put God first. This is our fault. And God will hold our nations accountable. Prior to the Second Coming, His wrath will be upon us. We have allowed faithless and wicked souls to lead us. We must change our governments. We must find righteous, God-fearing men to lead us. You Christian communists believe that the people can effectively change our society's; I believe we must have leaders who will lead righteously. This is what George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison had in mind when they established the Constitution of the USA. A republican (not the republican party in the USA today) form of government, where good men would be elected by the people to represent the people. I believe government is absolutely necessary in God's plan. After all, Jesus Christ will esablish His own kingdom, which He will reign over (as described in this article). We need good leaders. I disagree completely with anarchists; the people need good role models, they need good government. Jesus will have a government and we should try to mold our own governments after the pattern of His future Millenial government, to prepare for His coming.


 * If the government fails to act in protecting private property, due to a change in propert laws, the effects will be very problematic. In the USA and Mexico for example, a majority of the people would prefer to fight for their property, if the government chose to no longer protect their right in doing so. These people will not just wake up one morning and decide to give their property to the community; this is not realistic. And because the government passively removed protection of private property from their laws, looters and thieves would no longer have fear of incarceration. The people would no longer have no recourse to follow should they have their property stolen. Riots would result. Anarchy would prevail. Mobs would arise. Order would disintegrate. Murder rates would skyrocket. This is the logical consequence of passively removing property laws. Laws preventing robbery would be necessary, but how can a communist government institute such laws if private property does not exist? Could property be declared private until the community has decided to make it communal? Your method of passively withdrawing government from protecting private property does not yet appear to provide a method that can be used to entice men to share their wealth without neglecting their free will and that will maintain order. An effective transition to a communist form of government requires force or discarding of free will.


 * Can you guys also quit playing with words? First I discussed free will and its position with respect to communism. Then it you all preferred that I discuss free will as it applies to the transition to communism. Now you're telling me I am talking about majoritarianism. Make up your minds. Quit changing the argument. I pin you all down and then you try to change the argument by a play on words. All you have to do is define a realistic method by which a society can be effectively transitioned into a communist society without trampling upon free will. You have not yet done this. All you do is speak glowingly of a communist utopia but you provide no realistic means to bring that about. Just like the socialists in the USA; they try to bring about socialistic legislation without any realistic justification for it. (Gaytan 15:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC))


 * You are using logical fallacy again. Firstly, it is not I have been changing the discussion. You told me yourself to discuss how to implement communism, and thus you changed the discussion yourself. When I said "this is majoritarianism", I am identifying a principle that we are discussing, such that "this effect is not unique to communism, and has a long history of elements for and against". Clearly, I am not the one playing with words, but it appears someone is unfamiliar with them...(majoritarianism is a basic political science principle). I am not changing the argument, camarade. You think I speak glowingly but that is your intepretation after you decided our answers are unsatisfactory because you changed the discussion again. Your sudden ad hominem use of socialists in the US shows your clear use prejudice, partiality and partisanship in your argument. The fact that you can think that the Bible advocates capitalism is one thing, but have you ever thought to think about what God would want? To maximise talent to serve him; to glorify in general. Now, is not the best way to do that is by working to support each other? After all, a gift economy puts incentive on the individual to maximise potential (creating new talents), but capitalism does not concentrate on how the wealth is to be used.


 * There is no need to insult intelligence here, is there? Whether you believe there are socialists in the US or not, does not make a difference to me. I see religion being attacked in the US by anyone and everyone, and the Democratic party, which espouses many socialists agenda items, seems to be a major force in this effort. Although Republicans aren't doing much better, they don't seem to be directing the onslaught against religion. But I digress...


 * About what God wants... I agree with you, somewhat. He does want us to become as perfect as possible and I don;t believe we should limit ourselves. In achieving perfection, we should seek to do so as Christ exemplified it; we should do so by working together and helping others. In this we do not disagree.


 * But I believe that my handicap in this is that I am up against several different communist philosophers here on Wikipedia. One espouses an anarchistic approach to communism, which in my opinion, seems to be that one form of communism which may somewhat respect free will but is anti-government(Natalinasmpf); another seems to belittle free will (Nikodemos); and another which I cannot yet tell what he thinks of free will (Mister Mister). My point is that we cannot just get up one morning and decide to change a nation's entire economy; it takes gentle persuasion and it can only begin on a small-scale in order to protect free will. In recent communist history, this has been neglected and often replaced by brute force. This is what I, and many anti-communists, fear. But if a communist movement could preserve free will during all phases of transition and begin the transition at the community level, establish or mold a government that would protect the people and sustain their free will, then, I believe, it will have a better chance of acceptance in general. But it will still have much trouble removing the stigma of atheism and oppresiveness associated with the word communism. (Gaytan 17:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC))


 * I am not anti-government. I do not believe in stable, human, government, for stable governments are dry and repressive (a constantly dynamic government is an ideal). I am thus, anti-statist. I am not sure they are different communist philosophies as they are different emphases - they are certainly different from Marxism and Stalinism altogether. I cannot decide to wake up one morning and decide to change an economy &mdash; but I can very much persuade the majority of the population to, naturally not overnight. And yes, it must start small scale to preserve the anti-abuse culture.


 * One of the past problems with the Church was its interference in politics, and setting up one Christian kingdom against another, etc. which was naturally beginning to look more and more Machiavellian, and not Christian at all. Did Christianity convert the Roman Empire or was it vice versa? This too, about growing pains can be reflected in any Christian endeavour which grows, and becomes insensitive to irs root base. An anarchist movement, that does not pomp itself, therefore preserves Christian attitude. In recent communist history, may I add, the Bolsheviks decided to use a "cure-all" snake-oil approach to the economy. Their practices were not in fact communist - they used the term "communism" as just another name for their socialist movement, as did many at the time. Furthermore, in its endeavour to recruit a power base it neglected the ulterior motives of its participants. I advocate mostly progressivism, with separatism (which would require revolution) if it is needed/there is an oppurtunity. A separatist movement is not repressive, much like the Jewish revolutionaries were the local majority. But one must also consider that sovereignty is superficial - the only point to separate is to be free of the control of a government that is inferior when the capabilities of the community have outgrown its ability to provide for a Christian community. The stigma of atheism and oppression is to be ignored. It is just semantics. If things were really bad, you could call yourself a communalist or whatever, but I do not believe in assenting to the euphemism treadmill. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 22:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is much evil in the world. But that does not mean we bow down to it. When evil dictates we worship idols or starve, then we starve. Or cast into flames. I care not for what evil dictates. It does not prevent me from assuming there will be people with good faith. So what, if it's a small communal society? That is what God has granted. At the same time, we must not close our eyes to the possibility of a particularly large one, either. Personally I think its the materialistic Western culture that blinds you. Perfection will not occur till the Second Coming; but that does not mean we should not strive towards it. Again, do we not work towards ideals that we cannot achieve on Earth? But that is because we don't intend to complete our works on Earth.


 * Many of the communities set up prospered, until it succumbed to bullying external threats. Anarchist Spain thrived until Fascist Franco decided to intervene. The Paris Commune similarly thrived but they dared not touch the gold in the Central Bank of Paris for fear that it would incur the nations' wrath, but the Versailles government ended up using the money against them (it could have been used to the Commune's defense). In each of these, a lesson was learnt, in how to implement the next trial, the next attempt. To use an idiom, as Rome as not built in one day...furthermore, much of the time, the large jealous nations decided to wipe out these movements in their infancy before they could become a sizable hindrance. The authoritarian movements were allies because they didn't actually do anything truely radical. We can have role models, but not leaders with political power, for they are infallible. After all, was not Israel oppressed with a yoke when they cried for a king? Those call themselves Christians, but are not actually, would not join a society based on Christian economics, because they do not have the faith to do it. Actual converts, on the other hand, have taken the voluntary decision. Social change is the only way, because republicanism has chosen to be ineffective by itself, although much better than a monarchy. Was it only a few hundred years ago that everyone accused republicans of being heretical or faithless because they dared support the idea of a Republic which so went against the idea of the divine right of kings? Passively dissolving the government sends the nation into a constitutional crisis, and the people are forced to reorganise themselves; of which does not violate free will (just like a farmer is forced to resow crops when bad weather comes, etc.) The dissolution of a government would occur when the majority of the population no longer support the current state of society. You assume that dissolution would suddenly occur while most people were still capitalist. Also, defining "most" can also vary. For example, it could be a small town, country, or state, that decides to break away from a nation (one does not have to convert an entire nation, just most of a society be it local or national), as long as it is willing to guard itself. After all, such a case means the people have decided to absolve the current social contract and come up with a new one. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 22:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hutterites
I don't know enough about them to add it myself, or even to know if I should, but the article Hutterite seems to suggest the Hutterites are Christian commun(al)ists. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I could look into it and find an appropriate way to mention them, if indeed they should be mentioned here at all. Hutterite itself links to Christian anarchism in the See also section, but not here. Angr/ talk 00:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Christian Left vs. Christian Right or Communist Christian vs. Anti-communist Christians
Does it seem that we have created some terms that mean the same thing? I believe communist Christian is the same as the Christian left and anti-communist Christian is the Christian right. But if we tried to change these terms somehow, then we may need to consolidate this page to the Christian left page. Have you guys thought about this? Just wondering. (Gaytan 19:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC))
 * They are by no means the same thing. Christian communism is a very small section of the Christian left, and anti-communist Christians do not necessarily have to be right-wing. -- Nikodemos 23:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, a Christian leftist and a Christian communist are not the same thing. Of course, a Christian leftist might be a supporter of capitalism and against Christian communism, while still actively campaigning for other goals promoted by the Left. We really need to just stop generalizing everything here, and we need to stop talking about the 'socialist bias' (or sometimes the 'conservative bias') that is supposedly demonstrated within these pages, and actually attempt to be objective about this. I may not agree with what Protest Warrior does, but I'm not about to let people use the article to insert unsourced criticism and personal attacks. And likewise, we cannot let our own biases turn this article into a propaganda piece for the movement or a two minutes hate against it. Also, Gaytan, while I do respect you, and this isn't something that happens all the time per se, you really need to stop using this talk page to accuse socialists of trying to promote bias and views similar to undemocratic regimes such as Soviet Russia and China, as well as accusing leftists in the United States of being socialists. It really adds nothing to the article and it makes people angry, so for the sake of keeping things productive I'd suggest that you just try not to do it.

As such, I really don't think this new section is what we need. I may be wrong here, but it seems to just be taking a single point involving one person's interpretation and kind of running with it/expanding it into something that's a bit biased, and fairly uninformative and repetitive. Now, an informative (and slightly more concise, though still substantial) section dealing with opposition to Christian communism, that would work. Also, might it be fair to add to the article the idea that the debate over free will can also be applied to the Christian Right's support, in the case of some members of the movement, of banning by law certain actions which they see as immoral (same-sex marriage, pornography, blasphemy, etc.)? Give your thoughts.

Mister Mister 11:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am trying really hard not too bluntly attack Christian communist philosophy. If you believe I am doing this, then you clearly have the right to correct me. But like I said, all you have to do is look at how biased Wikipedia is towards socialism and against conservatism to get an idea of where I am coming from. Just compare the amount of criticism in the Christian right article to that found in the Christian left article.  Clearly, I am working against a huge left-wing machine here in Wikipedia. But in all fairness, please correct me if I am adding material on this page that appears too biased, although I may put up a fight.


 * About the Christian right infringing upon free will; I believe you have some truth there. But first, allow me to describe what my belief is about the purpose of law. Many conservatives, not all of course, will agree that laws are needed to protect the people. That's it. Any law made to force someone do good, has clearly gone too far. This is the position taken by Cleon Skousen and like-minded small government conservatives.  This is my position against socialism. Now, what do like-minded conservatives say about laws concerning evil deeds?  Going by the rule laid out above, evil acts should be permitted and not outlawed unless the acts hurt someone; in that case a law is need to protect the people. So, taking your examples one by one, laws that try to abolish blasphemy are clearly against free will and do nothing to protect the people. Most small government conservatives will agree that blasphemy should not be outlawed. Of course, I am sure there our some theocratic conservatives out there who will disagree with that.


 * Now, pornography. If this were outlawed completely, then free will would be removed again. But if it was freely accessible to everyone and anyone, then you would be trampling upon the free will of parents who are trying to keep such evils away from their children.  So, most like-minded conservatives, I believe, would agree that pornography should not be outlawed, but it should be strictly controlled by law so that only adults who choose to entertain that lifestyle can do so. If laws were limited to this, we would be protecting those who need to be protected (children) and leaving the free will of adults intact.


 * Now, same-sex marriage. This is much more controversial so I will not attempt to speak for any group of conservatives. My position on this, as explained above, is to protect the people. Some may take this as far as saying that, to protect the people against God's wrath, we should not legalize same-sex marriage. Others will say that by not legalizing same-sex marriage, the free will of homosexual individuals will be destroyed. My view is based solely on protection and compromise: protection of the children, the family, and the nation and culture as a whole; and compromising with homosexuals in order for them to practice their free will. I say that same-sex partners should be allowed to practice their lifestyles as they please. I also believe that laws should be created or changed in order to afford these couple some rights that they currently may not possess. But I do not believe we should call their relationship a marriage and it should not be considered equal to a marriage. To protect families and children, marriages should remain between man and a woman. Families are falling apart due to divorce, sexual misdeeds, and lack of communication. Will legalization of same-sex marriage decrease or increase the divorce rate? Can the upbringing of a child raised by two good men or two good women be compared to the upbringing of a child raised by a good man and a good woman? 50 years ago, same sex marriage was not even dreamed of. 50 years from now will groups like NAMBLA attempt to legalize marriage of adult men to boys? Should nations accept polygamist lifestyles as equal to monogamous marriage, as is currently done in parts of Canada? And what about bestiality?


 * What about the effect on same-sex marriage and birth rate? Would it be wise for a nation to legalize a practice that would put it on a road to extinction? Would it be wise for a culture to legalize a practice that would put it on a road to extinction? I think not.


 * Where should the line be drawn between free will and protection of individuals? I believe it must be drawn in a manner prohibiting legalization of same-sex marriage in order to protect children, families, and a nation and its culture. But I do believe that same-sex couple should be afforded some rights as a civil union. This would be my compromise.


 * Of course, not all conservatives would agree with all of my points, especially not the theocratic ones (although I do consider myself actively involved in religion and God-fearing). You guys may believe I am a theocrat; but I am not that extreme.


 * About including this topic into the article... add it if you wish. But please be sure to distinguish between theocratic conservatives and those of us, conservatives, who tend to not impose our beliefs on others by force. (Gaytan 17:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC))

...You know, I could point out that you just did the exact same thing (though not as badly, really) that I said was making things very confrontational, once again. But, I'm just going to leave it at that before I get too angry and make a complete jerk out of myself. Forget it. You guys can just work on this article yourselves for now. This is only getting me incredibly pissed off and I have better things to be doing with my time.

Also, Prohint: While I don't think that homosexuality is moral in a Biblical/spiritual sense, I have had significant personal problems dealing with my own bisexuality, and I get a bit tired of people and their gay-bashing. God, while I am fairly confident that he is not a fan of homosexuality itself, loves gay people and gets tired of fundamentalists treating them like monsters. Gays are not a bunch of nutty pedophiles who act like the Fab Five. It's a stereotype that I get really tried of. Also, using a slippery slope, as in "If we allow/do x, then x, x and x will follow" isn't really a great argument, and it kind of offends a lot of gay individuals when they're compared to child molesters and people who have sex with animals. But I digress, I need to just be quiet for now. Everyone, just... try to improve this article. If anyone wants to add material discussing what I outlined in my previous paragraph, feel free to do so. Just try to keep it as balanced as possible, please.

Mister Mister 23:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Born in communism, transition to communism, and free will
Nikodemos, I really believe that your comments about someone being born in communism never having the experience of private property should not be included in the article. This section of the article is about controversies, and most of these controversies are brought up by anti-communist Christians. These Christians somewhat agree with the idea of a sharing of wealth after the second coming. This utopia is a valid Christian belief, so the argument is not about someone being born into this utopia. The dispute arises when debating the transition of a society from capitalism to communism. In this scenario, no one is born without ever having had experienced private property. All people will know what it is to own property individually. The controversy falls into explaining how a people will be persuaded to share their wealth unequivocally. Anti-communist Christians do not believe that this can be done and still keep free will intact. Being born into communism is not part of the controversy being discussed. Of course, free will does not have anything to do with that scenario. At that point, no one will remember what private property was and will therefore not desire it. That is why it is looked at as utopia.(Gaytan 17:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC))
 * You are correct that the controversy is limited to the transition period when people who previously had private property will have to start sharing it. However, that fact is not currently mentioned in the article, so I thought I should write about it. I have added a sentence mentioning that the comments about people born in communism still leave open the arguments about the transition period. -- Nikodemos 08:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What is going on here?
"Religion is the opium of masses." - Karl Marx

If you acknowledge the fact that Karl Marx is the creator of the communist philosophy and the communist ideology, then you must realize that there is NO SUCH THING AS CHRISTIAN COMMUNISM. Communism rejects all kinds of religions for a reason. As Marx states it himself, religion is merely a tool for the ruling classes to stop the proletariat from rebelling for their rights, trying to convince the people that this world is not important, but the so-called "next world" is. You may agree or disagree with it, however, if you take Karl Marx's ideas as the very fundemental ideas of communism, then it is not rocketscience to realize that there is no such thing as christian communism. Christianity may or may not have similar ideas to those of communism, however; this is not the issue. I kindly ask this misinforming article to be removed. --Ekmekparasi 19:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to kindly ask you to not add your personal POV to this page. I mean, look at Gaytan. He has said that he does not agree with a lot of the concept of Christian communism, but he doesn't want to stifle and hide away the opinions of people who do (As far as I know). He doesn't think that every opinion that he doesn't agree with must be removed just because he doesn't agree with it. The article contains criticisms of Christian communism as well, by the way. This isn't a debating forum where we have to bend you your will, so no, this isn't getting deleted.

Mister Mister 02:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Some like me consider Marx to have all but plagiarized the New Testament. The two phrases of the so-called "Marxist Creed" can be found in various passages of the New Testament, pretty much verbatim. And as the comment I added (that Mister Mister deleted) about the word "fellowship" noted, even the word "communism" has etymological roots in the New Testament. So I disagree with your premise, Ekmekparasi, and I had tried to make that disagreement (which I considered "NPOV" in Wikipedia-speak) plain.

One should read not only Acts 2:42-45 (which has support in other passages), even if just in English, but also a modern English dictionary as well. That passage reflects the modern English dictionary definition of communism. But more than that, a word was used which etymologically matches "communism," even in its usage in this ancient context.

The nose on your face, Ekmekparasi, is no more obvious than this, but I'd bet you can't see it either without looking in a mirror.

"If you acknowledge the fact that Karl Marx is the creator of the communist philosophy and the communist ideology"

Do you even realise what you are saying? A very conservative estimate places the birth of the idea of communism in ancient Greece, not by Marx. We could even make an argument for its theoretical proposals long before (ie. that's what God wanted all along), but even the most historical estimate places the birth of communist idea by Greek philosophers, not Marx. We shouldn't even treat Marx like dogma; there were plenty of other theorists along side (have you considered Peter Kropotkin?) Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 22:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Apology
Guys, I wanted to let all of you know that I just want to apologize for saying something rude in my most recent edit summary. I had been having a bad day, I was tired and seeing something that was pretty blatantly POV being inserted into the article just kind of set me off. That being said, I'm sorry for being impolite.

Mister Mister 22:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to merge with 'Christian socialism'
I've added a proposal to merge this article with that on Christian socialism. This should be read as a proposal to merge OR to come up with a clear distinction between 'communism' and 'socialism' for the purposes of having two articles. At the moment most of the Biblical arguments in this article, for example, could just as easily go in the 'socialism' article.--Apeloverage 07:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I oppose. There's Christian anarchism too, and I think Christian communism (and its companion anarchism) is not merely satisfied in gradual concessions or welfare-based economics. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 05:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd rather work on the differences than attempt an ill-conceived merger at this point. For one thing, "Communism" generally connotes atheistic concepts associated with Marxism and one-party dictatorships. "Socialism" can embrace liberal democracy and can accommodate religion.


 * I think that "Christian communism" is poorly defined, however. Part of this may be due to deliberate attempts (not by Wikipedians!) to blur these distinctions.


 * All political, economic and religious terms are notoriously difficult to define. Let's try to make things clearer.

I think its time we remove the label on this article which states that this article is under consideration for merging into the Christian socialism article. It has been under question long enough and no clear reason has been offered to do this aside from Apeloverage's statement about the two articles being somewhat similar. Of course, the two articles may have their similarities, but this does not condone a merger between the two. Communism falls under the umbrella of socialism. While it may be appropriate to say that a all communists are socialists, it is definitely not fair to say that all socialists are communists. It is akin to many religious distinctions between major religions and their various sub-groups. An analogy can be made to the relationship between Mormons and Christians. While Mormons may be appropriately and fairly categorized as all being Christian, the opposite cannot be said of Christians (all Christians are definitely not Mormon). While communism and socialism share many theories, communism must be treated separately due to its different history, its different approaches to social and economic issues, and its different view on theology. (Gaytan 14:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

Christianity and communism
Cut from intro:


 * It is a theological and political theory based upon the view that the teachings of Jesus Christ compel Christians to support communism as the ideal social system.

I thought it was, rather, the view that Christ's teachings mandated "owning all things in common" - not "Communism" per se, and not "as a social system". I didn't see anything further down in the article to warrant this statement being in the intro. --Uncle Ed 20:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ed, the purpose of this article is to highlight the fact that there are people out there who really do interpret Jesus' teachings as communistic. While you and I may not agree with this view, it doesn't condone removal of this phrase and other related phrases. This entire article is based on the idea that Jesus promoted a form of communism. But this is simply another theory on Jesus' teachings; don't get upset. Wikipedia is supposed to contain articles about any topic you can think of and provide a brief summary on it. If there are several opposing views on an issue, these views should be fairly portrayed by Wikipedians; this rule holds even if you are personally opposed to a particular issue.


 * I consider myself anti-communist. For this article, I tried to portray the anti-communist view point while commmunist portrayed their view points. This is making for a well-rounded article that allows for Wiki readers to understand this issue from both sides. (Gaytan 15:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

Cheerful Giving
The following quote was copied from the article:


 * "Christian communists, on the other hand, believe that the "cheerful giving" mentioned in Corinthians has nothing to do with external compulsion or lack thereof, but is merely an issue of one's state of mind while giving. In this view, one can be a cheerful giver (or a grudging one) regardless of whether one is forced to give or not."

I really believe this is statement makes absolutley no sense. If I am forced to do something that automatically implies that I did not want to do it. How could anyone say that "one can be a cheerful giver (or a grudging one) regardless of whether one is forced to give or not." If you had to be forced to do something it is because you did not want to do it in the first place, so obviously you did it "grudgingly". There is no other way of interpreting this. If any of you have children, you know what I mean. If my kids don't share their toys with others, I could force them to do so, which would obviously force them to do this grudgingly. Or I can encourage them to share their toys, this is the only way you can get kids to share willingly; but I wouldn't necessarily call this "cheerful giving" either. "Cheerful giving" can only be had when a person has had a change in heart, a change that could only be brought about by a sincere form of love for one's neighbor. This change can only be wrought upon someone by the Spirit of God. Sheer force, or even tactful encouragement, cannot create a cheerful giver. You communists are clearly mistaken on this point.

Therefore I submit to the Christian communists that I will remove the above referenced material unless one of you can make sense of this statement. (Gaytan 14:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC))


 * No response? If not, I will remove this quoted material from the text. I believe plenty of time was given to discuss this.


 * If this offends anyone, I am open for discussion. I have no choice here; I can't modify it because this is the Christian communist perspective, that perspective which I oppose, therefore I cannot objectively modify this to accurately reflect that perspective. I can only remove it or help a Christian communist make some sense of this statement if he/she wishes to modify it themselves; I can then critique it.  As it stands, it makes absolutely no sense.  Therefore it must be removed.  Oh, and if you wish to add this statement back to the article, or something similar to it, please be sure to reference some known Christian communist quote to substantiate it.  If this is not done, it will likely be removed. (Gaytan 19:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC))


 * This was corrected as stated previously. (Gaytan 20:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

I am personally a Christian Communism and I have some comments on this article.

Essentially, to me the most important element of Capitalism is that is nothing but an elaborate system of Theft, flanked by Lies and Violence, which serve it and protect and expand it's power.

An interesting point that I am suprised hasn't been mentioned is the quote from the Gospels about how it is harder for a Rich Man to enter the kingdom of heavan than for a Camel to Enter the Eye of the Needle. In otherwords, harder than impossible.

The obvious question there is why? If being Rich is innocent in itself, why are rich peope forbidden access to Paradise. If they aren't going to Paradise, then they can only be going to hell, which is a place of eternal punishment, which a Just God wouldn't send them simply for being Rich, unless that was something that you are Guilty of.

This is actually a very strong argument (in my view) for Christian Communism, the Rich are inherantly guilty, beacause to be rich (in every society) is to steal from the poor, which would explain it well and means Communism is the desirable.

Anyway, that bit of Christian teaching needs some mention I think. Including the possible Communist use of that passage.

Some Objections
First, I think the communist project banner at the top is inappropriate. While we may want to say Christian commun(al)ism is a subset of communisms, it is not (necessarily? ever?) Marxist, so the hammer and sickle are inappropriate images to associate with it. Furthermore, none of the links associated with that sidebar are related to Christian communism at all; they're all more Marxist, Leninist, etc.

Second, there is a list of countries that "are seen or have been seen as oppressive in the United States," among them China, the Soviet Union, and North Korea. Now, I'm all for avoiding biased language, but are we really going to make the position of Wikipedia to be that North Korea is perceived as oppressive? The Soviet Union didn't really repress people, that's just an American media fabrication? Seriously? C'mon, that's some pretty bad POV. If we're really going to insist on hedging it, let's at least acknowledge that the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and North Korea are seen as oppressive by a much broader swath of the planet than just the American pig dog scum (kidding). Jordanp (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The hammer, sickle, red flag, and red star are all appropriate for Christian Communism if you take the symbols' meaning in their purest forms, not simply those of their creators. How do the proletariat and peasants conflict with Christianity?

And yes, it is true that China, the CCCP, and North Korea can objectively be viewed as oppressive. But let us not forget that the criticisms of these nations have often been exacerbated by the propaganda of the nation from which the statements come, i.e., the United States. The US's track record on equality and justice are distant from spotless. The racism and sexism exercised by the American government and people is on par with how we have been treating each other since the fall of man. We'd all do well to calm down and look at this topic through unbiased eyes, independent of our prejudices and whatever false or unverifiable information that has been presented thus far. --Soviet689 (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Müntzer stuff
The connection between communism and Müntzer is (?) as far as I known made in DDR in the 1900:s or at least somewhere in the 18:ths. Shouldn't it be stressed in the Müntzer section that the alleviation of the Müntzer position and role is made in modern times? Or am I wrong? Did socialism really emerge within some anabaptist movement and survive into the current socialist movements? One kind of christian communism could use Müntzer as an argument, though this should strictly not be necessary. What I'm after is that WP shouldn't try to prove that christian communism is the right communism nor christianity, it should cite and reflect those that try to do so, by naming the sources. NPOV:ing is just a process of attaching each statement to someone outside WP.  Said: Rursus   ☻   07:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Plymouth Colony
I have edited this section and added further references. It is still somewhat incomplete, but I think it is important to show that this colony was formed as a joint-stock company based on Christian Communalism not, as Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives call it, a "Socialist experiment". Bradford was upset that the original system did not successfully provide enough food for the settlers and used this failure to re-iterate his belief that the communalism practiced by the early Church would not work with secular participants and also took this as an opportunity to criticise the Platonic concept of an ideal society. Plato was a favorite of the Catholic medieval philosophers, which was a bone of contention for the Puritans as their religious movement was created to "purify" Christian doctrine and custom. They did not think it proper that Christian ideals should be mixed with "pagan" philosophy.

Earlier in the text before this quote, Bradford also condemns the greed and inhumanity of the settlement's investors (capitalists?), due to their unwillingness to send more supplies without payment - thus necessitating a change to the original production and distribution agreement.

If anyone would like to change or revert this, please take the time to read the primary source material before doing so. I am not doing this out of political or religious motivation, but because I believe irrational arguments to be inappropriate for a scholoraly article. There are enough examples of failed socialist/communist societies. No one needs to invent imaginary examples of such or distort the intentions of the United States' founding individuals to protect their personal beliefs nor do they need to promote these beliefs in a scholarly forum for them to be heard. 24.160.242.185 (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Excommunications and papal condemnations
As part of the controversies section, the article should perhaps include historic pontifical condemnations of Communism, including a 1949 decree against Communism which excommunicated all Catholic advocates of Communism. The influence of such excommunications is perhaps less important for Eastern Orthodox and Protestant Christians, but it was very significant during the Cold War when many nations in areas such as Western Europe and Latin America were strongly tempted by communism and were influenced otherwise by Roman Catholic denounciations of communist ideology. ADM (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Government
In the controversy section under the government part it is stated that "Christian communists, like all communists, do not wish to abolish the state in the near future; rather, they seek to abate it gradually over a long period of time." Now this is entirely false, while many communists adovocate a gradual transition some believe in going straight from capitalism to communism, most notable of which are Anarcho-Communists. And I'm assuming their are also Christian Communists that also advocate a straight change from capitalism to communism without any transitional period, so basically I'm asking someone to reword and a fix this section, thanks. (DrakeLuvenstein (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC))

Enlarged Controversy Section
It seems out of hand to me that the "Controversy" section accounts for fully one half of the article. I think we need to keep things in proportion, and prune the "Controversy" section to perhaps one fifth or one fourth the size of the rest of the article. Spartan2600 (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Classless society and slavery
Did a re-write/clean-up of this &sect; preserving/completing the prior content. This is, I think the essence of the intersection between the two concepts. Typo in the edit log "... orig text which can be verified ref to it" should be "... by ref to it". 72.228.150.44 (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Biblical citations"
Biblical citations section provide no secondary sources from self declared "christian communists" that use exactly those bible citations. Then WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Secondary sources must be provided.

BTW, the article has far to few inline citations and sources. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 11:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

One feels that this is perhaps an unreasonable demand. Ultimately you will hear and read Christians referencing and quoting from scripture incessantly in church as well as in Christian periodicals and publications. To quote Christians quoting scripture alongside quoting the scriptures they quote seems redundant space wastage. If you are supposing that Christian communists are all really stalinists who only reference Karl Marx, well, that's a the matter of the definition of who or what is a Christian communist. Miranda's 'Communism in the Bible' specifically references and discusses all these passages and more. Will it be enough to assert that, or do you require chapter and verse about the chapter and verse about the chapters and verses? One quotes and references such passages oneself routinely. We are talking about a plethora of common-knowledge material in common circulation, rather than a handful of easily recalled famous works. Partly the issue is that the boundary between Christian communists and other Christian lefts if porous and flexible with the scriptural inspiration being shared. PDTheologyHolt (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

A little nitpicking
"...for if their "face value" is not true, how can their deeper principles be considered true and valid?" - Could someone come up with a way to rephrase this as a question? Maybe it's just me, but I don't think encyclopedia's are supposed to ask questions to someone reading for answers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.228.90 (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2010

NPOV
The phrase "Christian communism has never truly answered the questions raised by this verse without some type of linguistic gymanastics involving semantics or twisting of the literary and legal meaning of the words" is an unsubstantiated opinion. Propose deletion of this sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.44.24.223 (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sections "Fee Will" and "Other Disputes" appear to have been begun by anti-communists purely to air anti-communist theology and interpretation of scripture. This in turn prompts rebuttal by Christian communists. Surely a wiki article is not supposed to be a debating forum? In what way is anti-communist interpretation of scripture and theology part of an authoritative exploration of the character and beliefs of Christian communism? Surely it is self-evident that as a political theology Christian communism is controversial, and little needs to be added to this article beyond a form of words such as "Christian communism, including it's characteristic reading of the Bible, is controversial to anti-communists". There are, are there not, wiki articles on anti-communism and right-wing Christianity? PDTheologyHolt (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

1.1.1 Radical Pre-reformation links to biblical literalism and theocracy both factually inaccurate, reductionist and tending to negatively portray the subject of the article. Reappraisal of source text by reading in context in mothertongue translation is not literalism. Appreciation of face value meaning of parables is not literalism. Accusation of literalism constitutes theological term of abuse. The kingdom of God is not Theocracy. Theocracy is political term of abuse. Equation of new testament theolgical concept of kingdom of God as theocracy is grossly reductionist and ignorant. Factual inaccuracy. PDTheologyHolt (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Updated
I heavily edited the article's introduction and removed as many weasel words as possible. Hopefully, it is more neutral and more informative than it was before.

Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by X Trev x (talk • contribs) 18:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Original research
This article is one great big piece of original research. Unless references from reliable secondary sources provided, I will start deleting big chunks of text real soon. Lovok Sovok (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better to look for some sources yourself first? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unlike many wikipedians, I don't want to boldly go where I did not go before. I am not an expert in this area. My brief familiarity with the subject had formed an opinion that the expressions "christian communism" and "religious communism" are the result of conflation of the concepts of "communism" and communalism. For example one author seriously dwells upon how monasteries with their communal life were mediaeval communism. Well, whatever. This professor has rights for their opinion. However any claims of this type musty be thoroughly attributed, cross-referenced and cross-criticized. Otherwise just as well we may discover capitalism in stone age. Lovok Sovok (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you look for it, you might well find 'primitive communism' in the Paleolithic, at least according to some sources.
 * I'd agree that in many cases, the best approach with unsourced or apparently 'original research' articles is deletion, but this particular one isn't exactly either offensive or making any claims that are likely to influence anyone much. It seems to me that your own POV (which of course you have, like everyone else, myself included), may perhaps be clouding your judgement a little. Why not just leave it for a few more days, and see if there is any response from the hordes of Christian Communists who may be hammering away at their collective keyboard as we speak (or possibly praying for divine inspiration before responding). I suspect they are a friendly enough bunch, and are unlikely to start an edit-war or begin to Wiki-stalk you en-masse. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a well-established concept of primitive communism. I am aware that my POV is limited. However it does not cloud my judgement with respect to wikipedia (I hope). As you may see, I did not suggest to delete this article right away. I am not in a big hurry. But eventually Christocommies will have to comply with wikimocracy. Lovok Sovok (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ...or vice versa. Actually, thinking about it, a friend I'm meeting tomorrow may know something about this subject, or at least know someone who does. I'll see if we can find some WP:RS between us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * or vice versa -- Are you precognizing a communist revolution in wikipedia? :-) Lovok Sovok (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ...on the contrary, per Wikipedia principles, I'm avoiding making predictions that there won't be a Christian Communist takeover. ;-)
 * Talking with my friend, it appears that 'Christian Communists' are probably relatively few in number, at least in the English-speaking world - this is OR of course, and needs checking properly. It doesn't necessarily give grounds to delete the article though, any more than the apparent implausibility of their doctrine/ideology: the Flat Earth Society for example has a Wikipedia article, despite its 'wrongness' and limited membership. Not that I'm making a direct comparison of course... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not for deleting the article. I am for removing unreferenced text which looks dubious, one-sided (prozelytization or bashing), or otherwise unsuitable. Especially since not a single ChC rushes to join our small talk here. 16:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovok Sovok (talk • contribs)

You are all most patient and kind. Rep all round. I myself have only begun to self-describe as Christian Communist since finding this wiki entry. I have previously always self-described as Christian Socialist. I ought not to take my case and views as representative, but then as AndyTheGrump points out, there do not appear to be many of us to compare myself against. I have re-self-labelled under the influence of JPM's CITB as well as recent discoveries about Engels and the origins of the Communist League/1st International in the League of the Just, which reminded me about responses I had to the biblical source material shortly after becoming a Christian, and seeming to see something vastly more politically revolutionary and overtly communistic than the reality of apolitical, neutralist, controversy-averse church. If modern communism originated in just such Christian response to the text of Scripture, before Marx and Engels got involved, then, yes I am such a Christian communist. NB this has nothing in particular to do with membership of the CP or any variant of Leninist sect. I have met Christians who are members of the (post-stalinist, belatedly New Leftish) CP, as well as some who are members of the SWP, but their CCism is of a different kind, I am asserting. At risk of generalising from one datum again, I have the impression that Christian communism is developing in real-life alongside this wiki. There are ongoing theological developments in British protestantism led by former Bishop of Durham Tom Wright concerning the relationship between kingdom of God, resurrection and future history as understood during Jesus' generation, which are shifting the ground, as will the republication of Miranda's 'Communism', leading others like myself back to his recovery of Marx & Engels' hostility to crass and determinist materialism and the consequent irrelevance of atheism to Marx's historical analysis and political-economic critique of capitalism, and therefore the absence of necessity for left-Christians to accept the deterministic materialist account of the origins and nature of "religion" as part of being Marxian. Your comments on how, or if to include any of this into the wiki would be useful. PDTheologyHolt (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Other Christian Communism
This framework is not solely from the politics of the Communism based on Marx, Lenin, Mao, Trotsky and any other political thinkers and philosophers.

This is not about the political ”left” or “right”, extreme or moderate, orthodox Marxism or revisionism, reformist or revolutionist, neither reaffirmist or rejectionist.

We may mention some ideas along the way of reading, digesting, internalizing this and formulating thoughts and strategies that is similar to them (unless mentioned) but not necessarily intended to ignore nor not giving them due credit and acknowledgement but to emphasise the teachings of Christ.

The Christian Communism is a social ideology based on Christian beliefs, teachings and aspirations.

Before we elaborate any further, however, it is important to know the correct definition of Communism. Enemies of political communists and communisms misled much of the learners, and observers of national and international political order.

Communism is erroneously defined to favor the interests of wealthy people who managed to power-broke if not occupied the key government positions. It is mixed with terrifying qualifiers and descriptions to discourage support, belief and sympathy of the peoples. Anti-communism defined it as authoritarianism, totalitarian, in the Philippines it is defined as NPA (New People’s Army) and in the heights of Al-Qaeda’s popularity, the wealth accumulators took advantage of the time by tagging the Communism as terrorism and communists as terrorists.

Let us take a definition from a dictionary for at least to make our individual knowledge and orientation level and refreshed.

What is Communism?

Communism, according to a dictionary, is a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole...( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism )

From this definition, please remember the phrase “…holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole..” a system prevailing in a social organization or society which is commonly known Communism. It is obvious that there is no private property but common property which is ascribed to the community as a whole. In capitalism, property ownership is on the hands of private individual or group.

For Karl Marx it is, a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism)

It is a movement that molds or encourages, in other words a general strategy, aimed to a classless and stateless society which is also based in common ownership. But specify the means of production which include land, capital/machineries and technologies and materials. It also clarifies that common ownership does not end to means of production but the outputs ( basic goods and services)are also owned commonly which access is free and not for sale in exchange of money and salaries and wages are put to an end. Since all things are owned by all citizens or members of the community, and they work for free, they could get all their basic necessity for free without limits according to their families’ needs. This includes the free shelter as private property of real eastate is put to an end as well. It is concluded that an structured society has ended where propertied people or class with control of the properties and means are superior, conscious or not conscious, over the unpropertied. There will be no more employers neither employees, rich or poor. First class nor second class which exists whether we admit it or not, legislated or not, discrimination and unjust treatment is a reality nowadays. Classless society will put in place as private ownership is abolished.

Marx also aims for stateless society which interpreted with varied strategies by different political thinkers and leaders. It must be noted however that it is not communism alone struggling with such vision but capitalism as well.

Now let us take a look at Christian Communism.

It envisions a community or society (does not necessarily national or totalitarian) that is also structured based on equality and stateless philosophy.

Egalitarian Christianity

Christian Communism is not taught by Jesus Christ neither of Apostles. The historical and Biblical accounts show that we are instructed to “..love our neighbors..”

Apostle Paul teaches us how to be just with one another. He promoted equality among the followers of Christ and suggests the equitable distribution of wealth. Paul teachings provided a solution to poverty. (II Corinthians 8:13-14, 15)

It is not good for a Christian to be selfish and greedy. God hates such kind of people as written by Apostle John, and he stressed that love should not be a lip service but with actions and in truth. And that is not limited to people whom they personally know but to strangers as well. (I John 3:17-18; III John 1:5)

Does Christianity aim for a stateless society?

Yes. It is important to know first that, we, Christians, are taught to be thankful to kings (or presidents as time changes titles) for us may live in peaceful and quiet lives. We are instructed by the Lord to submit ourselves to authorities for they are established by God. (ITim2:1-2; Romans13:4-15.)

But Apostle Paul reminded us the limitations of being submissive to government if the government ceased to do its duties according to God’s will ”(f)or our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (I Peters 2:13-17; Ephesians 6: 12)

However, Jesus Christ and Apostles do not teach us to rebel against any government (a component of a society to call it a state) neither call for its abolition.

It is predicted through the Holy Spirit by Apostle Paul that He has put an end all dominion or rule, authority and power for Jesus Christ to hand over the Kingdom to Almighty God. (I Corinthians 15:24-25)

There comes a time, when a community or society will be free from government jurisdiction, authority –laws and regulations, and force, a stateless society will be realised.

Paul the Apostle teaches us to love our neighbor—help one another, teach one another and other commandments by faith in Jesus Christ not by the virtue of legislated and executed laws by the government. Government Laws, regulations, force, intimidation, and suppression are just for the offenders to correct the misbehaviours and just for a little time while the transgressors are in training as tutees for them to make good works habits out of love. If these selfless good works are made habits then laws and government ceased to exist in our lives. (Gal.2:16,3:19, 23-24 25-26; Romans 13:9-10)

Classless and Stateless society is predicted to happen by Marx through the dictatorship of the proletariats but he forgot to consider the attitude of individual, commons sense and tendencies. As Antonio Gramci’s analysis, proletariats (workers)are working to keep the status quo for they see the status of the elites (capitalists and government bureaucrats)as good and standard of the society. Proletariat work hard to be in elites’ status.

Nowadays, it is not just the proletariats but almost everyone from all different sectors (class) perceived the same despite of different generations and experienced oppressions have passed.

Peoples, especially Christians, must obey the Bible teachings. We all are required not to seek our own good, but the good of others. We are bound to help one another, show concerns and act for others for we are one and no one is independent from the others. We are obligated to others’ interests, discouraged to be with conflict but to be united as one and equal without discrimination.( I Corinthians 10:24; 12:14-25, 26) Collectivity is given priority than individuality but autonomy (as individual functions are used) of individuals remains for the common good and not for oneself. One’s gift including the material wealth, but I emphasized with human capital must be used to serve others. Intellectual abilities to create convenience, improvements of way of life must be concretized and create outputs to serve others not as profiteers but a faithful stewards of God. And in giving one’s gift for others interests, one should not count his or her contribution and compare to others. (I Peter 4:10; Galatians 6:4,5; I Corinthians 12:4-5)

Variants of Communism with different strategies are based in different political nexus and paradigms and that confuse and misled and keep astray from where they should be. But we servants of Christ should demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God and be a good example of obedience for us to continue in our journey to communism…to our freedom. But freedom to help one another and not to take advantage and exploit one another. This freedom is freedom from oppressive and suppressive system and individual-self thoughts, attitudes and desires of being wealthy, powerful, authority, and superior class over the others that is harmful for others. This freedom is freedom from flesh but captive of the Spirit. (2 Corinthians 10:5; Gal 5:13-14, 15-17; Romans 13:9-10.)

The common problem of the variants of Communists is the absence of recognition to Gramsci’s analysis. The Vanguard Party of Lenin.., Red Army of Mao and others’ considered leaders or redeemers of the masses from tyrannical clout of capitalism are describable as the class with Gramci’s Proletariats’ common sense.

Collective leadership is encouraged through the Spirit within individual citizen by learning to devote ourselves to do what is good. (Galatians 5:18; Titus 3:14)

But leaderships must come with knowledge and understanding. One with the gift of ability to teach must teach, ability to heal must heal and so on. (I Corinthians 12:4-5)

Organic Intellectuals’ role will bring us to our aspiration but it must be based on and guided by the requirements of Jesus Christ for the Holy Spirit to lead His peoples. Whoever in that role and everyone are reminded to do the tasks with humility.(Philippians 2:3-11; James 4:4-6; Galatians 6:4-6)

If anyone among us failed to work in humility and with other requirements of Jesus Christ, we will find ourselves in disorder and evil practice and again the state will exist again to intervene. (James 3:13-18)

rania 09:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC) rania 09:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

What a mess! Unsalvageable.
I'm sorry to say this, but this article is so fouled up that there is no reasonable way to save it, except to delete it and start anew.

There was a major theological debate about the relation of Christianity and Marxism, which drew in participants from much of the world, in the 1960s through the 1980s, and is very well documented, with no lack of sources at all. This article cites none of that; it hardly cites anything at all, except for a few websites and other portions of the Wikipedia. If the author is trying to talk about some religious community or group somewhere, who are they, and where are they from?

The author should have simply made this a personal blog someplace else. Other websites, and Wikipedia articles on liberation theology and theologians, cover this topic much better, and this page should go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.154.173 (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Credibility
Apart from specific verses from the bible this article has few good sources. Most sources are second hand or third hand sources i.e. citing websites like diggers and other wikipedia articles. This article is not clearly setup it just seems like a jumbled mess, with some parts of it seeming mostly unbiased all the way to very biased information. Some parts are a bit vague, while others offer far to much information to discern the main point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.56.12.12 (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Christain Communist Parties
Official Sinn Fain needs adding to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.79.206 (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Very much dubious
"Elephants are animals created by elephant tracks". Or not. Since at the very least conservatism and communism (and I would also say liberalism) to some extent can be traced back to the Bible, it seems to me that "Communist Christianity" is a less misleading misnomer than "Christian Communism". But, let's say someone adhered to the Communist Faith, dismissed the obligatory Atheism and "adapted" Christianity in its place, then we would have proper "Christian Communism". This article is a mess, since it includes tendencies in Christianity, that anachronistically could be reinterpreted as "Communism", by applying mental athletics. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 09:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Pre-Marx Communism / Communalism
Subsection about Mormon Communism was deleted. References to Consecration and United_Order refer to the Christian Communism in Acts 4. Although Mormons are anti-Communist, what they had was communism under a different name. I read a book on the United order and coincidentally met the author while hitchhiking in Utah, we disagreed but I was still amazed about the similarities to pure communism. (Can't remember name of book.) The New Testament records that early Christians were called upon to set their hearts first on the kingdom of God and to have "all things in common" Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but is the deletion a bad or a good thing? Every Christian (and similar faiths) know that there is sort of "communism" (or communalism) in early Christianity, but that this facet is most often refactored to monasticism for a "elite" or some spiritual communalism. The fact that at all history there pops up christians that takes this communalism seriously, then some mention on the "socialism" of Mormonism is in my opinion justified. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 15:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This section was removed again due to the fact that it describes by it's on admission that it is referring to communalism and not communism. The 'tag' that was placed, long before deletion, stated that the section did indeed stray from the original article. Please don't reinstate this section without proper discussion. It never should have been placed here. It would be more suited to an article concerning 'communalism. Wikipedia is not a place to add sections to articles by simply assuming that it fits based on similarities. The United order was considered at that time, by the participants, as 'communalism' not communism...it wasn't communism under a different name, it wasn't communism at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeMaster (talk • contribs) 07:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It seemed silly to say all this material deleted between 2013-02-20 — 2013-03-01 really belongs at Communalism without actually moving the text there, so I copied over the whole "Pre-Marx" section as it existed on 2013‎-02-13 onto Communalism. The amount of material that is in direct quotes is excessive, so more work needs to be done in order to improve this new section there, but now there is a starting point to work from. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Enormous original research
This article has slowly been turning in one huge unreferenced essay, probably because nobody gives a shit about christian commies. This original research must be stopped in tracks right away. Don't even think about restoring all this unreferenced stuff: this is a major violation of wikipedia policies and will not be allowed by community. If the subject is as prominent as the size of this article was, you must have no troubles to find references from reliable sources other than the Bible (which by the way says nothing about Communism; I doubt such word existed in Hebrew or even in King James times. :-). -M.Altenmann >t 07:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Amen to that. Endrū Hejs (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Christian communism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100306045740/http://sarumtheologian.wordpress.com:80/2009/05/15/how-might-liberation-theology-shape-a-christian-understanding-of-salvation/ to http://sarumtheologian.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/how-might-liberation-theology-shape-a-christian-understanding-of-salvation/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Sci-fi section "Symbolism"
I newer heard, saw, or read about Christian Communist Symbolism, somehow I can not imagine any Christian (except from that who wants to be named "heretic") using that thing with sickle. Red Ichtys? I need to check my car... Is there anyone who really thinks that if you paint Cross or anything else in red it makes it Communist? Although similarities between Christian religion and communist ideology can be found I see no point in creating fictional symbols and signs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.20.122.112 (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christian communism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807055622/http://www.iww.org/cic/history/hagertys.html to http://www.iww.org/cic/history/hagertys.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070515173146/http://s155777461.onlinehome.us/docs/21de_47e.htm to http://s155777461.onlinehome.us/docs/21de_47e.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Marx was a Christian
Karl Marx was baptized as infant and he wrote a piece of ardent Christian propaganda. So he was a Christian formally and actually. Of course, he did not remain a Christian, that's what our article says. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Christian communism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120908053921/http://www.redescristianas.net/2009/06/20/jesus-un-hombre-de-equilibrio-fantasia-cradora-y-originalidadleonardo-boff-teologo/ to http://www.redescristianas.net/2009/06/20/jesus-un-hombre-de-equilibrio-fantasia-cradora-y-originalidadleonardo-boff-teologo/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119044610/http://www.okaraygua-paraguai.org/es/conozcanos.html to http://www.okaraygua-paraguai.org/es/conozcanos.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Anabaptist movement is liberal, not christian communism
Christina communism does not exist. Amish and many in the anabaptist movement are classified as christian communists. Nothing can be more wrong. That is the same to say that they are communist liberals. The majority of amish are self-employed individuals. They stress on the individual in the community. They despise society in all its forms. They do not want to be integrated with social power. They do not vote. If they vote they are conservatives. The anabaptist movement is the foundation of liberalism. They try to lay road in the blind nature in 100 ways. Amish are extreme liberals. I call them individualistic socialists, which is the correct form of communtiy/German gemeinschaft. It is sociologists such as Tönnies who in the 1800s started to classify anabaptists as christian communists living in gemeinschaft. He was preceded by Karl Marx who argued that teh first communists were the peasants revolting in Germany during the protestant uprising. Marx and Tönnies did not understand what extreme liberalism means. Christians are still not communists, though they are no longer individuals living in a gemeinschaft community. They vote liberal. Communists belive that they can create gemeinschaft in a gesellschaft society. It is impossible. Amish understands that gesellschaft comes with education. Thus, no more education thant 8 years of simple schooling. Egoism, competition and loss of community comes with education. Education creas a book learned society which do not understand the meaning of egoless community. The anabaptist movement try on 100 ways to live according to the first jewish-christian communities in a oral community, who only had the Bible/Law above them. Sorry for my English. I am Swedish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mestos (talk • contribs) 11:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I did not encounter the word Anabaptist in the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was something not supported by sources about it. Removed. In general, the comment by Mestos seems to be pretty much reasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Bible Communism
It seems to me that this article is incomplete without a discussion about the concept of Bible Communism that was espoused by John Humphrey Noyes & practiced at the Oneida Community for decades. I am unable to afford the time to immediately incorporate this, but I am posting this here for future editing by others or myself. Peaceray (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Bible communism" -wiki - Google Search