Opinion of PragerU Jesus

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm generally of the opinion that Al Franken should stay canceled, but his "Gospel of Supply-Side Jesus" did it first and did it better.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Jesus can not be called a “(proto-)socialist“ in any meaningful sense as he did not advocate for common ownership of things among all of humanity or the control of the means of production. He did not call for the end of slavery. He did not call for us to stand side together as “equals”, only to the Christian converts did he prescribe anything resembling “fair treatment”. His worldview was idealist and not based on scientific observation and testing.

This is a compelling argument against characterizing Jesus as a socialist until the last sentence. Self-described "scientific socialism" is not and never has been the only kind of socialism there is.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Jesus can not be called a “(proto-)socialist“ in any meaningful sense as he did not advocate for common ownership of things among all of humanity or the control of the means of production. He did not call for the end of slavery. He did not call for us to stand side together as “equals”, only to the Christian converts did he prescribe anything resembling “fair treatment”. His worldview was idealist and not based on scientific observation and testing.

This is a compelling argument against characterizing Jesus as a socialist until the last sentence. Self-described "scientific socialism" is not and never has been the only kind of socialism there is.

     Would you say that the belief in an ability to construct an ideal society is intrinsic to socialism?

I would not. It's possible to believe that a society in which there was some form of collective or democratized ownership of land, capital, etc. would be preferable to what we have now, without believing that it would be a utopia or that all social problems or problems of public morality would be solved. I hold just that belief.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Jesus can not be called a “(proto-)socialist“ in any meaningful sense as he did not advocate for common ownership of things among all of humanity or the control of the means of production. He did not call for the end of slavery. He did not call for us to stand side together as “equals”, only to the Christian converts did he prescribe anything resembling “fair treatment”. His worldview was idealist and not based on scientific observation and testing.

This is a compelling argument against characterizing Jesus as a socialist until the last sentence. Self-described "scientific socialism" is not and never has been the only kind of socialism there is.

     Would you say that the belief in an ability to construct an ideal society is intrinsic to socialism?

I would not. It's possible to believe that a society in which there was some form of collective or democratized ownership of land, capital, etc. would be preferable to what we have now, without believing that it would be a utopia or that all social problems or problems of public morality would be solved. I hold just that belief.

     What then would be a sufficiently generalized definition of socialism?

The belief that a society in which [etc., see previous post] would be better than what we have now, and the willingness to make that belief a lodestar for political action.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Jesus can not be called a “(proto-)socialist“ in any meaningful sense as he did not advocate for common ownership of things among all of humanity or the control of the means of production. He did not call for the end of slavery. He did not call for us to stand side together as “equals”, only to the Christian converts did he prescribe anything resembling “fair treatment”. His worldview was idealist and not based on scientific observation and testing.

This is a compelling argument against characterizing Jesus as a socialist until the last sentence. Self-described "scientific socialism" is not and never has been the only kind of socialism there is.

Fine

Sorry, does something about this criticism get on your nerves? I don't intend it as an attack on you or anything.

PiT, I'll try to respond to your (really interesting and trenchant!) question later today.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Hi PiT. Sorry I took so much longer to get back to this than I said I would.

     There is something I am curious for your take on. In the phronema of the Orthodox Church, economic public policy is not part of the Church's moral teaching, and so the idea that the Gospel of Christ is a socialist one can be dismissed pretty readily. Without a doubt we should give generously to the poor, but we would never say that establishing a government to effect that end is a Christian imperative. I am aware though that the Catholic Church teaches what economic policy should be, though I must admit that I am not clear on the specifics. With the understanding that Catholics do believe that economic policy is subject to Church doctrine, would you say there is merit to the concept that Jesus is a socialist?

I would not, even though I'm a socialist and a follower of Jesus. There are two main reasons for this, one theological and one historical:

1. The theological reason: Since Jesus is God, all human passions and thus all human ideologies--all "-isms"--must be assessed for compatibility with His teachings rather than the other way around. He is not a socialist, a capitalist, a feminist, etc. etc. etc., because His teachings are the criterion by which these other systems of thought must be judged. If one were to argue for an overall unity of socialist theory and Christian teaching on public morality, the correct formulation would be "socialism is Christlike", not "Jesus was a socialist".
2. The historical reason: Jesus was not a socialist because He lived here with us in a time period in which the problems that socialism exists to address--i.e. the problems of capitalism or very late feudalism--did not yet exist. Would Jesus have looked at a society with a mixed economy and a social-democratic or dirigiste conservative ruling party and liked what He saw better than He liked the Southern Levant of the first century? I think in many ways He would, yes. But the same could be said of a lot of systems of social organization, including laissez-faire capitalism; democratic socialism isn't unique in being an improvement over the slave society of Antiquity.
2a. As PSOL, somewhat acridly, points out, Jesus didn't even have as much to say about the issues of power and oppression that were politically contested in His time as we might like Him to have had. It's true that as a Catholic I believe that there are some ways to navigate power and oppression that are more in keeping with His teachings than others, and that as a Catholic leftist I believe that the political left and the labor movement hold many of the answers to how to walk those paths; however, I don't believe that He Himself in His time on earth saw fit to spell out those answers for us.