C.S. Lewis has mentioned that a Christian society would be a “Leftist” society. Karl Popper has said similar things, and has used the phrase “Christian socialism.”
Well, right now I’m of the opinion that Christianity is incompatible with the Left, really for no other reason than I think that Christianity transcends the political spectrum. I don’t think Christianity is compatible with the Left because the Left asserts that human beings can solve their own problems; Leftists are humanists; at the end of the day, Leftism is all about giving more of what you have, that’s true, but only for the sake of a collective interest (in other words, a communist only works ultimately for his own benefit if he believes that all will benefit from a collective good). Christians give out of love, which has nothing to do with collective interest, individual interest, or interest of any kind.
The Right touts individual interest, but only because people of the Right tend to believe that human beings are evil (Rightists are anti-humanists) and that the best motivation for a productive society is self-interest. Freedom of choice is what the Right–that is, Libertarian–system is all about. The Right allows the indulgence of Self-Will. Christianity does not. It seems, as I said before, that Christianity cannot find a place anywhere on the traditional political spectrum.
Getting back to my original question, would it be fair to conclude that the idea of a “Christian socialism” is an oxymoron? Socialism entails giving for the sake of a collective interest, living for the sake of others; Christianity entails giving for the sake of love, living for God. Agree? Disagree?
Does it make more sense to give only for personal interest? Perhaps because you want to get into heaven or something?
What you term as “leftist” is very much the same frame of mind as the “love your neighbour” of the bible, just without God in the manner that many think of God in. Many socialists have become so inclined by their faith and the recognition of common ground. Erich Fromm found that Marx, communism and socialism, christianity, the Prophets and Mystics, Buddha etc. were all promoting life fulfilment in “being” rather than in “having.”
Indeed, Christ’s teaching leads us that way, even though Paul’s Myth-building is more concerned with promoting the grace of God in Christ - especially in his crucifixion theology.
I don’t think so, since it is merely the inclusion of the Divine as a Motivator for common good.
But, it seems to me that Leftists are materialists, since when they talk about the “common good,” they are only referring to wordly things like material goods and how to produce and distribute them. Doesn’t socialism of every kind promote materialism, which is something that the Hebrew scriptures and the Christian testaments reject?
I believe you do have a point here, but the biggest problem that Marx and Engels had with their Comunist Manifesto, was that it was extremely materialistic. They knew too that if you demand absolute equality, you haven’t done away with the prime evil: the comparison of wealth which eventually leads to competitive thinking and conflict.
However, Materialism was in full throw when they wrote the Manifesto, it was a response to human cost of Industrial Revolution and intended to contribute to restoring the dignity of mankind. Marx entirely trusted to the intellectual development of the working class - but was disappointed. The educated led the working classes into revolution but they were both looking for different things. The ideology of the educated wasn’t what the worker was looking for, he was under the illusion that he could have a warm bed and a full belly for less work.
Consequently the idealists became victims of the revolution, much as they were at the french revolution.
Not really, im a buddhist and a socialist. I believe that a society built not on profit and egoism, but on the welfare of the people is a good growing ground for the anti-egoist ideology of buddhism.
I’m a materialist, cause i beleive everthing excists of atoms/material. That doesn’t mean i believe problems can be fixed only by removing private ownership.
I think there is an arguement either way here. Christianity has had a tendancy of moveing throughout the world by adapting to whatever is going on. Festivals like Christmas are the result of thinly veiled pagan celebrations. This also worked politically, sometimes when a new person came into power they used Cristianity to legitimise their power. Thus, Christianity can be associated with different types of political movements that associate with it.
Currently in Amercia, Christianity is in the hands, it seems, of the right. Now this does put into humorous and stark contrast some of the leftest things in the bible and other Christianity traditions. For example, if I wen’t into a typical church especially in the south, the parishoners might tell me “Cut your hair you damn hippy,” while at the same time there would be a painting on the wall of a Jesus who looks a whole lot more like me than any of them.
In short, Christianity can be twisted to fit either the left or the right. In the end, I don’t think it has an ally in either in that they are both worldly views with worldly concerns. (Anarchy would probably get more people to heaven- quicker too.)