Talk:Christian socialism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Section on 'Christian Socialist' as a term of abuse for the Republican Party

This section was removed for being NPOV. I've put it back, re-written in NPOV language.--Apeloverage 07:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's still unsourced by anything except a blog/discussion forum, which is not a reliable source. If you can find published sources describing the Republican Party as "Christian Socialist", you can put it back in, but until then I'm removing it again as unencyclopedic in its current form. Angr (t • c) 08:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It's reliable enough to prove that the term is used in blogs and forums; I've added a couple of sources, and toned down the claim that it's 'widely used'.

Its use in blogs and forums alone isn't notable enough for inclusion in the article, though. Just because there are people out there who don't know what Christian socialism really is, and "coin" the phrase anew to mean what they want it to mean, doesn't imply this article has to acknowledge that. At least not until it becomes a widespread enough "second meaning" that it has currency outside of forums and blogs. Angr (t • c) 10:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

They're presumably the sort of people who came up with 'Communists for Kerry' (satirically accusing John Kerry of being a Communist); this is just an extension of the general use of 'communist' or 'socialist' as essentially a term of abuse meaning 'not as right-wing as me'. The only novelty being that these particular right-wingers are also anti-Christian. I think this use *is* very widespread - probably far more people have been abusively called communists or socialists than have called themselves such - and this is just an example of that.--Apeloverage 07:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, you're probably right. Take it off if you want.--Apeloverage 03:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The GOP should not be considered part of the CS movement, unless one is refering to the GOP of the late 19th and early 20th century, and even then it has to be used with a lot of caution. --Wikicardenas 23:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony Blair??

Definitely a Christian, and at some point in his past a socialist of sorts, but presumably the topic of this article is not people who happen to be both Christians and Socialists, but people where the one is informed by the other. I see no sign of that in Blair. Am I missing something, or is the person who added Blairs name to the article? - Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's an oddity. I've just removed the Christian Socialist category from the Tony Benn, but it's sort of the opposite problem to the Blair one, and a greyer area. Benn is clearly a socialist, but he's not clearly a christian, although that's up for debate. He has described himself as a 'lapsed agnostic' or a 'humanist' or a 'christian agnostic', and I've not seen any evidence for him believing in God or an afterlife. However, he and his socialism are certainly influenced by christianity and the teachings of Jesus and what he preaches could well be called christian socialism. Since there's no category for 'agnostic socialists for Jesus', I'm not quite sure if he belongs here or not! --82.45.163.18 14:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Chavez

Huge Chavez has invoked the name of Christianity in his social policies often enough, I'd think he deserves at least a mention here - somebody want to write that bit in? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've put him in the list of christian socialists. --Apeloverage 08:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

What kind of idiocy makes you think that chavez is a Christian socialist???!!! Please, remove that nonsense. --dalegrett 13:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The great temptation

The great temptation is to water down two very distinct ideas. Communism that we know and live with in the news is a relic of the last century, a tool of domination and division that has been proven to be a failure of thought, science, economics and spirituality. Communalism, alla the Shakers, Ephrata, The Oneida community and the descendants of Menno Simmons and Jacob Amin have their God and each other as a buffer against us. Modern communists seem almost more anachornistic than these for when they wake up they are holding the empty bag of state religion. Socialism must be differentiated from The social gospel movements of the last century. Though both are deceptive and achieve their ends by illegitemate logic Socialism is the more potent factor in our lives while, the social gospel as promoted by moldy oldies like archbishop Temple is merely a perversion of The Gospel. --Dklwood67 21:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[dklwood]

This has what to do with writing the article? - Jmabel | Talk 05:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think what is being said, if one keeps and open mind, is that socialism was born out of religious fanaticism, or a reaction to it, and that in the end the socialist ideal remains inherently flawed since its primordial conception with Plato. Centuries from now, the revolutionary wars Europe may one day be deemed “The Atheist Crusades.” With dogma and zeal they forged ahead without ever knowing if there ideal would actual work, causing much miser and death. At least the American Revolutionary Liberals kept to tried and true methods compatible with human nature, and their successful moderation of religion not seen since Genghis Khan, and their non-capitalistic establishment of landowning farmer-soldiers eager to mind their own business and be done with church and king. For both church and king would love nothing more than a complacent, peaceful, socialist state to rule over. In the end, just another footnote on the fanatical dogma list, that Marx guy. Please, someone, liberate liberalism from socialism! They really are not compatible. Jcchat66 05:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hugo Chávez

What is the basis for the uncommented removal of Hugo Chávez? He is certainly both a Christian and a socialist, and has used Christian rhetoric in defense of his socialism. - Jmabel | Talk 23:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That said, it would be nice if he didn't dominate the quotes section; you'd think he invented the concept if you just looked there.129.49.105.253 22:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is idiotic, who would believe Chavez is a Christian Socialist? --dalegrett 13:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, anyone who reads the quotes from him at the bottom of this page and reads the article Hugo Chávez, including the sources it cites. It's pretty unambiguous that Christian socialist is an appropriate label for him. —Angr 12:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Cut from lead

Israel have also had a dominate centre-left parties but with Judaism instead of Christianity as in other parts of the world but have since the late 90's had influentual parties with centre-right and conservative views in parliament and presidency.

Incoherent, apparently off-topic, and uncited. If there is something to this, would someone please rewrite coherently and cite appropriately? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 01:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Christian social

Christian social redirects here even though the article makes it clear it shouldn't. Can't think where to put that redirect though A Geek Tragedy 00:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Christian social should be a disambiguation page, giving links to political parties with "Christian social" in their name, and also to here (Christian socialism). Peter Ballard 02:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Paul Heaton

I added the frontman of The Housemartins to the list. I remember a back cover of their debut album with the message "Take Jesus - Take Marx - Take Hope", and his lyrics are influenced by both Marxism and Christianity. Isn't that enough? 89.164.13.51 (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt he's a Christian or a socialist. It's the "prominent" part I take issue with. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Even better, delete the whole list. It is arbitary and non-enencyclopedic. Just give a handful of prominent examples. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

Let me get this straight, because this whole article is really confusing. Because Jesus was a rebel against the Roman Empire, someone has assumed that he is a socialist? If that is the case, then so were the Jews, Gauls, Carthaginians, Britannians, Greeks ... just about everyone in the world that fought against the same empire. Am I missing something here? Is Hugo Chavez really saying that? Jcchat66 23:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Jesus was a rebel against the Roman Empire"

But he was no such thing. He made it pretty clear that he wasn't here to fight earthly governments. This is one of the things that really annoys me about the Christian Left... this hokum about Jesus coming to defeat the Roman Empire (and inferring that'd he'd also come to defeat the US government in same way); the Jewish priesthood at the time wouldn't accept him as the Messiah partly because he WOULDN'T fight Rome. In their view, the Messiah would be a kind of military commander to free the Hebrew nations from the yoke of Roman Rule, not a poor carpenter preaching brotherly love and preparation for the kingdom in the next world. Jesus instructed people to be obey their civil authorities. "Render unto Caesar", anyone? Pontius Pilate wanted to let him go at first because he couldn't find any fault in his actions, and certainly didn't find him in rebellion against Rome. If Jesus rebelled against earthly authorities, it was against the Jewish sects like the pharisees, not any earthly government.

Look the writings of Shane Claiborne (Jesus for President) as an example of this kind of stuff. Come to think of it, with his statements about capitalism being un-Christian, and his advocacy of communal living, and his leadership in the "emergent church" movement, perhaps Claiborne himself should be an example on this list.DesScorp (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't saying that, that's Chávez's opinion. Whether you agree with his statement or not, whether you think it could have been better worded or better explained, it's a relevant quote to the article. —Angr 12:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the most ridiculous thing I have seen in quite a time about Chavez... "Christian socialist"????!!! --dalegrett 13:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC), from Caracas, Venezuela

Why not? The quotes make it clear that his socialist ideals are informed by Christianity. —Angr 12:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It makes it clear that Chavez is ignorant of history and religion, and informed by his own ego, not Christianity. The origins of socialism, or any kind of planned economy or society, were first put into ideological form by Plato (as far as we know), and practiced by the Spartans (who went to extremes to maintain their planned society). What connection is made with Christianity, which came from Judaism. Look up free will, and you will find that this is most sacred with Judaism. Free will is not compatible with the ideology of socialism or any form of planned society/economy. The existence of this article is based upon a blatantly crackpot mutation of concepts. Besides, many religions share things in common with one another, that does not make them connected, or mean one was influenced by another. This whole article reeks of original research. Jcchat66 22:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As a Christian socialist myself, I obviously completely reject your notion that "free will is not compatible with the ideology of socialism", and I imagine other Christian socialists would reject it as well. —Angr 22:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course you would reject it (laughing) because it would undermine such a silly notion. Every socialist and communists and fascists I've debated with rejects it. Everyone's rejects what they don't want to hear. But if you had an open mind and the Christian humility to listen to reasonable arguments, you would not make such a statement knowingly.

So in case you do have humility and an open mind, read on. Socialism requires giving over incredible power to a small minority to plan their society or their economy, which naturally occurs on its own without any planning as history has proven. (Which is why we have culture at all, it wasn't planned.) Such power requires the use of force, for it is impossible that 100% of the population would accept the social planning, for many would reject it regardless of how utopian it might look like on paper. History has proven this point beyond the hopes of any well-meaning arguments. Power corrupts absolutely, so socialism, no matter how good the intentions, would be doomed because it requires so much power to be held by a few.

Christianity and Judaism, do not put any faith in human power, which is why the Ten Commandments were forged, why rule of law became paramount above all else, and the foundation for all liberal thought. The stories in the Bible clearly depict a struggle against those with great power, thus Abraham fled from Ur, and Moses from Egypt, and then later the Jews from Babylon, and finally from Germany. Ur, Egypt, Babylon, and Germany, all nations famous for tyrants of absolute power. And then there is Jesus, who defied the Roman Empire, who, being a Jew himself, was perfectly in accord with his cultural heritage. So why in the world after all this struggling against power would any Christian or Jew endorse a program of social planning? How is planning what people may buy and sell in accord with free will? It's difficult enough as it is to get people not to abuse free will with rule of law, let alone obey arbitrary rules from an oligarchy.

Motive. The reason most intellectuals endorse any kind of socialist ideology is for the following reasons: 1, to deal with poverty. 2, to address the inequality of aristocratic control over resources. 3, the latest fad, to protect the environment. The socialist argument depends on being the ONLY answer to alleviate these valid issues, and prey upon the guilt of others. Christianity addresses all of these issues without any kind of social planning, which, if you claim to be a Christian, should already know. Jcchat66 02:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Socialism, of course, does not require a planned society or economy, although Stalinist Communism (which isn't anything like socialism) does. (It also requires atheism.) The socialist parties of mainland western European countries live quite happily in unplanned societies with free market economies. As you point out, the goals of socialism and the goals of Christianity--to eliminate poverty and inequality--are the same (I don't know where you get the idea that socialism is a "fad to protect the environment", though); the real contradiction in terms is being a capitalist Christian, because the capitalist ideals of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer are contrary to Christian teaching. —Angr 06:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Socialism is defined as such 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. Socialism is very much the ideology of planned society and/or an economy. What you speak of is clearly liberalism, which was the motive force behind most Western European and American revolutions, and to eliminate poverty through other more effective and traditional approaches like charity. If you don't believe in planned economy/society, then you are de facto not a socialist, and we have nothing to disagree with. So why not Christian Liberalism? In fact, just plain Christian would suffice, as it does not support capitalism anyway. Jcchat66 15:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be thrilled if "Christian" could be understood to mean "Christian socialist" by my defintion (see the top of this discussion page for what Christian socialism means to me -- your definition 2a of "socialism" is practically identical to my definition of communism), but unfortunately the Puritans, and the "Christian" religious right after them, have pushed through their interpretation of "God helps those who help themselves" to mean "If you're poor, it's because you're lazy and it's your own damn fault, and why should we do anything to help you?" I would also be thrilled if charity actually was an effective means to eliminate poverty, but (as Jesus predicted), the poor are still with us. —Angr 17:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, perhaps we are making progress then understanding these various terms. But remember, the definition of socialism is not mine, that's straight from Webster. I have many different dictionaries and the meaning of the word has never changed. "God helps those that help themselves" is yet another demonstration of free will, and it also emphasizes responsibility. Many people remain poor because they ARE lazy, or don't take responsibility for their own actions. But can you distinguish that laziness from a natural desire not to work for nothing? I would not want to work hard for a tyrant either, or knowing that the house I build will be taken by a warlord. Why bother? Most governments of most nations exploit their people far worse than any capitalist economic system can dream of, and this has nothing to do with any ideology. I do not endorse capitalism, It's just not the primary source of poverty by any stretch of the imagination. And no one else is responsible for one's food and clothing except themselves, period. To claim anyone else is responsible requires the use of force and deceit. Charity was meant to relieve those that have suffered dire obstacles in obtaining those necessities, not a cure for poverty. How is Christian socialism different from Christian liberalism? Or socialism from liberalism? Jcchat66 17:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Webster is just a "harmless drudge" who wrote a dictionary; we don't have to take his definition of socialism as the final word. And whose definition of liberalism are you using? "Liberal" means something quite different in America from what it means in Europe. The German party that calls itself "The Liberals" is the pro-business FDP; their politics match up with those of moderate Republicans in the U.S. —Angr 18:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's ANY dictionary, and none of them vary that much. The meaning of socialism and liberalism has never changed, and the core ideology have always been opposite. Politicians, of course, like to appropriate the wrong word to make their arguments sound better, but that does not change the definition. For language to work at all words have to change as little as possible, which is difficult enough as it is. But words in political parties its could mean anything. When in doubt, look of the word in several sources, and that keeps the debate civilized. And don't fall into the trap of applying an ism to every concept, there just are not enough. You sound like someone who is against the abuse of power, as such abuse causes poverty. That makes more sense, does it not? The complexity lies with how to prevent the abuse of power. Democracy, rule of law, morality, and Judeo-Christian thought deal with that all in the same way ... by distributing power into as many hands as possible ... that free will. The concentration of power has generally been proven to be the enemy of all people, thus autocracy, feudalism, aristocracy, fascism, oligarchy, etc. These are not absolutes, but merely guidelines. Concentration of power generally leads to exploitation, and division of power generally leads to freedom from exploitation. Socialism, as universally defined in language (not politics), always seeks to concentrate power. Capitalism on the other hand is not well defined, for it could mean the concentration of power in corporations, or the division of power into individuals, or small businesses. One is very aristocratic, as depicted on Critique of Capitalism, with a king at the top and the exploited at the bottom. Not a good word to use when aristocracy would be far more descriptive. Under true, Utopian capitalism depicted by Ayn Rand, there would be no aristocracy at all, no concentration of power. Just like in true, Utopian communism, there would be no government at all. Neither has EVER been experienced in any nation. So, as I have asked others many times before, are you for or against the concentration of power? As a Christian, you would have to say against. As a socialist, you would have to say for. The intentions do not matter, as power can be used for either good or evil. But since far more evils of exploitation can be performed by the concentration of power than by its division, one's political ambitions can become more evident. So, that explained, which is it? Are you for or against the concentration of power? Jcchat66 19:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As a Christian, I believe that power is concentrated in the hands of God; ideally that would be sufficient and there would be no need for human government at all, as people could be trusted to genuinely love their neighbors as themselves, and act accordingly. When I was young my father told me that communism could work only in a purely Christian context, because only when a person's love for others is as great as his love for himself will he be interested in working for the common good rather than his own personal good. In real life, though, some degree of concentration of power is necessary to protect the weak against the strong and to keep the trains running on time. The problem is not with concentrated power per se, but with its corruptive influence. In an ideal Christian socialist state, those in whom the power is concentrated would be protected from its corruptive influence by their love of God and their neighbor, and by the knowledge that on the Day of Judgment they will be answerable to a higher Power than themselves! So I guess the answer to your question is I'm for the concentration of power, provided the people in whom it's concentrated are as Christlike as it's possible for human beings to be. (And yet, paradoxically perhaps, my favorite form of church polity is the highly decentralized Congregationalist structure!) —Angr 21:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well said. And indeed, the concentration of real power lies with God and not men. Though I do not agree with the use of socialism for its many connections to other bad ideas in history, and that there's better words to describe what your saying, I cannot fault your intentions. On the other hand, I see no point in concentrating power into any group of people, no matter how well-educated or Christlike they may be, for in the end they are human. And as humans, why not just leave it in the hands of the people in a liberal republic, rather than in the hands of the few in any other form of government. Seldom has history shown a difference. Nobility has proven to be less noble than peasants, and priests as cruel as any low brute, and royalty pale and diseased with inbreeding. Christianity offers hope in self-government through free will, in showing love to one another regardless of circumstances, and in doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. The USA could not exist without Judeo-Christian love and free will, and Western Europe would not have survived as a culture into the renaissiance without faith and hope in something better. In the end, may God be with all of us, regardless of what isms we attach to our convictions. Thank you for your insight in this matter, Angr. Jcchat66 00:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You wrote, "I do not agree with the use of socialism for its many connections to other bad ideas in history". If it comes to that, Christianity also has connections to some bad ideas in history; the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the early modern witch-hunts come to mind. —Angr 08:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Angr, I cannot argue against that at all. That is why I try and stress the deeds and actions of individuals and groups and their motives, rather than the ideologies they hide behind and act in the name of. This is precisely why no group of individuals, no matter how heroic or Christlike they may be, no matter how good their intentions, should be entrusted with power over others, or such power severely limited in duration and scope. Better to let God's gift of free will sort it out, and keep men of power chained by words on paper for as long as possible, before the politicians are freed from such restraints by cunning sophistry. Jcchat66 22:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Take your debate elsewhere folks. Rocksong 07:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you input, but this is a discussion for clarification. Certain words are not being used as defined. Jcchat66 15:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No you're not. You're arguing over the validity or otherwise of Christian Socialism. If you have a source saying Christianity is incompatible with socialism, put it in the article. Otherwise argue your WP:Original Research elsewhere. Rocksong 03:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

As you can clearly see, the discussion is over between myself and Angr, which went quite well. I learned something, and hopefully he did as well, which is the whole point of any encyclopedia. Discussion may include anything and everything so long as it does not become unprofessional or hostile, which may or may not lead to the improvement of the article. The article has a long ways to go to, which needs some historical background. Though I may disagree with the idea, I am not trying to stop someone from engaging in discussion ... as you apparently are. Jcchat66 04:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines says in bold letters "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.". That is what I thought you were doing. If you weren't, then I apologise. Rocksong 11:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem Rocksong, I understand. Too many people do push their personal views, and too many people jump to conclusions. That what the discussion page if for, to sort it out. Also from the Talk Page Guidelines (which is not set in stone as it states) you have the following: "Communicate: If in doubt, make the extra effort so that other people understand you & you get a proper understanding of others. Being friendly is a great help. It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something and not explain why. Giving an opinion helps in convincing others and reaching consensus." This is at least one guideline I whole-heartedly agree with. But rest assured! I do not have a platform. But I would like to see more people use words correctly as defined, and not expect everyone else to know what they mean when they use a word incorrectly. Ideas need to be spelled out more to avoid confusion, and if words are not used as defined in most dictionaries, even more confusion results. Politically charged words are abused more than any other. When it doubt, look it up, and if that's not what it means in most dictionaries, then that's not what it means at all. We have more than enough words, and combinations of words, to conceive of every possible concept and idea. So then, with that said, I apologize if I am misunderstood in my quest for knowledge. Jcchat66 21:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Christian Socialism IS NOT Social Catholicism

I was redirected to "Christian Socialism" when attempting to access "Social Catholicism", a Wiki supereditor apparently thinks that the concepts are identical. They are not. Social Catholicism is derived from, but not coextensive with, "Catholic social thinking", both of which oppose socialism. Social Catholicism was active in the late 19th century and serves as foundation for Personalism and Christian Democracy and to a lesser degree for the Corporative State and Distributism. Generally, the Social Catholics who may or may not be religious Catholics, seek an alternative to capitalism and socialism.

A good source is Paul Misner's "Social Catholicism in Europe: From the Onset of Industrialization to the First World War" (1991)

A more contemporary example is "Solidarism" which, in one form, was developed by the economist Heinrich Pesch. Pesch is no friend to capitalism or socialism.

This, of course, raises another concern. One of the continuing problems with Wikipedia is that certain editors have been elevated to a status of "supereditor" and as such they are able to delete, merge or ignore content at discretion. This probably works well for most popular topics but whenever a supereditor applies their knowledge based on casual and uninformed assumptions to areas well beyond their competence then problems arise. Someone who did not know assumed that "Social Catholicism" is but a form of "Christian Socialism" and as a result future readers are denied access to an important entry.

Wikipedia should adopt the requirement that a supereditor be constrained from deletion until/unless they consult with some who have expertise in the topic targeted for deletion or merger.

Just a thought, LAWinans (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

To subsume Social Catholicism within Christian Socialism

Pope Leo XIII a critic of Socialism

It ought to be noted in the article that Leo XIII was himself rather anti-Socialist, and had no problem in calling the Socialists bad men in the 1878 encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris. ADM (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Redundancy

This section is for the removal of redundant words in this article. If you find redundancies, please make note of them here after you remove them. This allows other editors to challenge that removal. Please give the reason why you feel the word is redundant.

List of Redundancies Removed

• the word letter after encyclical from the History section because all encyclicals issued by the Roman Catholic Church are letters. (There is nothing civil about Civil War. 18:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC))

Christian socialism and Christian communism

What is the diference between Christian socialism and Christian communism?--JK the unwise 15:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Haven't looked at the articles lately, but I'd use "Christian socialism" to refer to modern movements that mix Christianity and socialism. "Chrisian communism" would usually refer to the pre-Marxian meaning of "communism": living communally, abjuring private property, etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:36, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

"Chrisian communism" would usually refer to the pre-Marxian meaning of "communism"

But the Christian socialism article also covers pre-modern times. For this reason I propose this article be merged into the Christian socialism article. --Erauch 19:55, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've added a proposal to merge this article with that on Christian communism. 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 the communism article, for example, could just as easily go in this article (and probably in that on 'liberation theology' as well, but that's another issue).--Apeloverage 07:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not well enough read on the issue to know whether the distinction is made clear in print anywhere, or if so, where, but for what it's worth I can tell you what I perceive to be the difference between them. The ideal of Christian Communism is to eliminate all personal possessions: everything is owned by the community (for example, the State), which is then responsible for providing all goods and services to the members of the community (the citizens in case of a State) and ensuring that everyone is treated fairly. No one is richer or poorer than anyone else, because no one owns anything. This more or less corresponds to the way monks, nuns, and Hutterites live. Christian Socialism doesn't go quite that far; in an ideal Christian Socialist society, the government would be responsible for providing food, clothing, shelter, and medical attention to those who could not otherwise afford them, and would be responsible for helping them get to a point where they could afford such things, but there would be no central ownership of everything. Thus while the government would ensure there was no abject poverty, there would still be personal possessions, and some people would be richer than others. Angr (t • c) 23:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes but are you not contraditing yourself by first saying.."The ideal of Christian Communism is to elimnate all personal possessions, then in say that, "there would still be personal possessions." The two don't go together. Either there would be one or the other? 4:25pm, 31 December. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.244.11.164 (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Angr's analysis. I see Christian communism as including complete redistribution/sharing of wealth (or shared ownership, as Angr put it), and so going much further than Christian socialism. In fact, if the Christian socialism article is to be merged, I think it makes more sense to merge it with Christian left. But it's probably best as it stands: a short article, with pointers both to the fuller discussion in Christian left, and the more extreme Christian communism. So in short: they're different, so no merge. Rocksong 02:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they are different enough to warrant their own page, but similar enough to be "linked" together as they are now.

Keep in mind that, at least in Britain, the term "Christian Socialist" is used to refer to a specific historical movement connected to Edward Vansittart Neale, who were interested in promoting worker cooperatives in the tradition of the Rochdale Pioneers, and - amongst other achievements - helped to establish the International Co-operative Alliance. They were, arguably, more influenced by the ideas of Utopian Socialists such as Charles Fourier and Robert Owen, rather than wanting to establish a Communist State (in the Marxian sense) or State Socialism.

In a similar sense, a person such as Japanese pacifist Toyohiko Kagawa wished to combine (as he described in his book "Brotherhood Economics") Pacifism, Consumers' Co-operatives. and Christianity; yet he was quite strongly anti-Marxist and against State-Socialism. - AmishThrasher 13:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Christian socialism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Christian socialism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Berman":

• From Social democracy: Berman, Sheri. "Understanding Social Democracy" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-08-11.
• From Franklin Spencer Spalding: Berman, David (2007). Radicalism in the Mountain West 1890-1920. University Press of Colorado. pp. 11–12.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Christian socialists, e.g., J.K. Rowling

The list of Christian socialists is largely unsourced. For example, there is nothing on J.K. Rowling's wikipedia page that says she is a socialist, despite her anti-poverty views and support for the British Labour Party in the form of donations. Some commentators interpreted her Harry Potter novels as having some socialist meaning but others saw them as embodying capitalist neoliberalism.Michael 20:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikem1234 (talk • contribs)

Revision to "Religious Criticisms"

I 'undid' a major addition to "Religious Criticisms" because it was biased, libelously anti-Catholic, poorly written, and off-topic for the section. That being said, I agreed with many of the points the author had made (the pro-socialist, not the anti-Catholic) and he/she had some decent Bible quotes in support of socialism. I think some of the material could be salvaged, I plan on working on that later... but as it stood, the material wasn't NPOV, wasn't properly referenced, and was more suitable for a blog post than Wikipedia. CaveatScriptor (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to point out that the section on "Religious Criticism" doesn't include any real religious criticism. It is true that the listed instances are examples of religious LEADERS that were critical, but there is not a single criticism in the form of a religious argument. There is no Bible passage cited that contradicts the tenets of Christian socialism, for example. (I am not able to suggest any; I just expected to see something like that there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.182.197 (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Symbolism

is there any way for Christian socialists to distinguish themselves from Christians who have been brainwashed by the right-wing? --99.101.160.159 (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've got a LiveJournal avatar that says, "Proud member of the Christian Left"; but you'll find Christian socialists in almost every denomination, so there's no symbol we have in common. A "red" cross means something else entirely! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

List of non-Socialist Christian parties?

Just wondering why under the heading "Christian Socialist Parties" there is another section for "Non-socialist, conservative and demochristian parties"? Seems incongruous at best unless I'm missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.45.240 (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

They are there so that one can see whether a given "Christian Social" party is a Christian socialist party, or not. Examine, for example, the Christian Social Parties of Belgium and the Netherlands, neighboring countries with cultural ties: the current and the defunct Belgian parties were both Christian democrats, whereas the Netherlands party was Christian socialist (in a social democratic mode). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Coercion

What is there stance on coercion? Meaning would they force others to be part of their socialism? --197.229.85.204 (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Christian socialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091010173131/http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20930265-2702,00.html to http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20930265-2702,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)