Jesus was not a Socialist

Every Four years, Democrats will come out claiming that Christians should oppose cuts in Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid and that they should support the Democratic Party, because Jesus said that we should be giving to the poor and the needy. The problem with their argument however is that Jesus did NOT call on the government to take from the individual and redistribute that money to the poor. Christian Socialists will claim that Jesus was a socialist for the same reasons or because at the end of one parable or another, everyone was paid the same amount.

Those espousing a Socialist Jesus do not know what Socialism is, or even what the basis of the Socialist framework is built on. If only they understood the tenants of Socialism, they would have never made the mistake that of attributing to the founder of Christianity the designation of Socialist. For the Purpose of this article, we will only be discussing State Socialism.

State Socialism

Benjamin Tucker wrote in his Essay “Two Socialisms”, defining State Socialism as “The doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by the government, regardless of individual choice.” That is to say, that the ownership of all means of production are to be owned by the Society, being represented by the State. The Socialist prescription policy is a natural deduction from the their theory of value, which they took from Adam Smith. Tucker wrote, “The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his “Wealth of Nations,” – namely, that labor is the true measure of price.”

In Matthew 20, Jesus tells a parable of a vineyard owner who hired people to work in his vineyard. The first people he hired, he agreed with them, to pay them a denarius for a day’s work. The vineyard owner hired more laborers every 3 hours throughout the day, ending in the eleventh hour of the day, he tells them that he will pay them a just wage for their labor. At the end of the day, the owner pays the laborers starting with the last persons to be hired and ending with the first ones to be hired. All the laborers were payed one denarius. The ones hired first, had objected saying “These last men have worked only one hour, and you made them equal to us who have borne the burden and the heat of the day” (Matthew 20:12 EMTV). The owner reminded them that they had agreed to work for a denarius a day, and thus he did no wrong to them at all.

This parable is one of the most non-Socialist parables in the entire Bible. Jesus’ parable has the vineyard, a means of production, being owned by a private individual and not the State. Instead of a Labor theory of value, which would result in the first laborers being paid more than the last ones, we have a subjective theory of value being displayed in the very act of the laborers agreeing with the owner to work for a specified wage, displaying that they valued the denarius more than their time and by the vineyard owner paying the workers all a denarius, showing that he valued their time and work more than the denarius.

Another parable where Jesus departs from Socialism is the parable of the Talents found in Matthew 25. The parable is told as the following:

Mat 25:14-18 EMTV "For it is as if a man leaving on a journey, who called his own servants and handed over his possessions to them. 15 And to the one he gave five talents, and to another two, and to another one, to each according to his own ability; and immediately he went on a journey. 16 Then the one receiving the five talents went and traded with them, and made five other talents. 17 And likewise the one receiving the two gained two more also. 18 But the one receiving one went away and dug in the ground, and hid his lord's money.

When it came to settle the accounts with each of the servants, the master rewarded the first two servants, but became angry over the servant with only one talent and punished him by giving his talent to the one that started out with 5 talents. In his chastisement of the servant with the one talent he said, “You should have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received what is mine with interest” (Matthew 25:27 EMTV). According to Tucker, Interest is an unjust source of income, because it is not based in labor.

According to http://www.angelfire.com/cellophanetales/jesusthesocialist.html, the Story of Zacchaeus the tax collector as another supposed example of Socialism, because he gave away half his wealth after meeting and talking to Jesus. The problem with this theory though, is that State Socialism sees Taxation as a good thing, and not as an evil. Whereas in this story, found in Luke 19, Zacchaeus, being a tax collector, was described as a sinner, furthermore, it is upon his repentance, Zacchaeus not only gave half of his possessions to the poor, he also vowed to restore every person he has extorted fourfold. This vow is completely reflects the restitution theory of justice espoused by libertarian legal theorists like Walter Block, Stephan Kinsella, Hans Hermann-Hoppe, and the late Murray N. Rothbard.

So to summarize thus far the divergence from Jesus and the Socialists, look at the following table:

Jesus was an Anarchist

Not only was Jesus NOT a Socialist, Jesus was an ANARCHIST!! In Matthew 20, the mother of James and John, the sons of Zebedee had came to Jesus and requested that he exalt them to the heist positions of his kingdom, to which Jesus responded that those positions were not his to give. Ten of the other disciples became angry at the two brothers upon hearing about the incident. In response to the quarrelsome, Jesus said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, shall be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:25-28 EMTV).

Note the contrast in this passage, unlike the rulers (archontes) who attempt to exercise dominion over others, the believers of Jesus, are not to even attempt to do so, but rather to humble themselves and be servants/ ministers (literally, like waitresses at a restaurant) to their fellow man. There is no place in the religion of Jesus for human rulers!