Heaven on earth = Communism

That only works when there's no scarcity. Then its up to communists/capitalists/anarchists/dictators how to slice the cake
- Yeah, pretty massive fundamental difference, lol.

Well, something that the Mormons have is they tried out communism. They called it the law of consecration. They had some fun times with trying to handle being productive and redistribution and poligamous. They ultimately concluded that they weren't ready for it yet so they went back to default capitalism with tithing and poor/fast offerings.
Tl;dr: Mormons believe in a kind of communism in heaven, and they go hungry for 2 meals (24 hrs) to remember to give generously to the poor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_consecration?wprov=sfla1
- ‘They’ didn’t decide they weren’t ready. It was used to fleece the pathetic true believers for a short period until the inner circle felt sufficiently capitalized.

Heaven was literally [re]invented to be a description of utopia specifically so that toiling workers wouldn't get distracted trying to create it on Earth.
"oooh heaven is a place on earth" take that shit literally, fam
- Pie in the sky By and by

That's because there are no brown people in their version of heaven.
- Ah now it all makes sense

The thing to understand about Christianity is that it was originally a reaction against the Roman empire and then got co-opted and integrated into it. As a result, ever since like the 4th century Christianity has been about basically the opposite of what Jesus talked about. It turns out all that stuff about turning the other cheek stops being relevant if the emperor has his soldiers paint crosses on their shields while they're out conquering and enslaving the Gauls. Of course, you can keep all the mythological stuff, who cares, but anything relevant to politics or the material world mysteriously seemed to reverse once they entered the halls of power.
The carrot of being accepted into the empire was matched with the stick that if you didn't go along with the imperial-approved form of Christianity you'd be burned at the stake as a heretic. Any sects still clinging to anti-imperial sentiment get hunted down and exterminated just like when they were being fed to lions, but it's the Christians doing it to each other now, so you don't even have to get your own hands dirty. This approach worked way better at suppressing dissent than just trying to ban Christianity altogether.
Of course, a lot has changed over the centuries. And originally it wasn't perfect or anything either. But imo, it was when Rome Christianized that Christianity Romanized, and ever since its real values have had more to do with Rome than with Jesus. The meme's, "moneyless, classless, stateless" ideal of heaven is a relic of the original teachings that gets shunted off to the purely mythological side, where it not only doesn't matter, but also occupies a place in their brain that could have otherwise been sympathetic to making good things happen in the material world. That's already resolved, there's no need to worry about it, there'll be pie in sky when you die.
- This is why christian fascism should not be the least bit surprising.
- Great writeup comrade, I also wanna share this really interesting article from Roland Boer, going over this history a bit, and also outlining the historical intersections of communism and christianity.
- Oh it makes sense now, recuperation is not a capitalist concept, it is an imperialist concept!
- They didn't keep the mythological stuff, that got edited out too as needed once it started disagreeing with the State and the Church.

I don't think communism is a moneyless system. Pretty sure people paid money for things in the USSR. Have there been any communist countries without money?
- To understand this you need to understand the theory. Marx outlined that socialism and communism each had to be transitioned to after reaching a given level of social/economic development. In particular there is the notion of "withering away of the state" which would happen after a global revolution, which is the aim of this classless/moniless society they outlined.
  The communist manifesto is a short read!
  In fact the USSR implemented explicit market policies, a sort of contained capitalism, which was designed to facilitate reaching the necessary preconditions for socialism and communism. Essentially all of the "communist" states we've seen so far have been some play on the notion of just "socialism in one country" in the Marxist-Leninist version of communist parties, who have/had the goal of eventually reaching communism.
  What's probably most interesting is that the idea behind the USSR wasn't initially to have the state direct everything from the top, but in fact to facilitate worker councils (soviets) to direct their workplaces.
  But you have to remember this all happened in the context of a state which had recently undergone a revolution, was rife with counterrevolutonary action (see revolutionary France and civil war Britain to see how this played out during the birth of liberalism) and was then plunged into WW2 where most states involved were acting fairly dictatorially for the duration of it. Followed shortly by the US making it an explicit goal to prevent world communism through e.g. CIA intervention because they feared "domino theory"
- Yes, which is why the USSR never once in its history claimed to have built communism. The best they claimed was "developed socialism" with promises to build Communism someday
  
  something that I don't get about communism: how do you prevent people from redistributing their wealth unequally over time?
  I don't really have any politic views because the discourse on it is so big and the issues so complex, but lean more towards socialism
- Communism is a post-Socialist society, it must be global, highly developed, and have full public ownership, or close enough to those. The Soviet Union was, instead, Socialist, ie an economy where public ownership is the principle aspect. That being said, there were attempts at Cybernetics, and moving beyond money. These are actually incredibly interesting, and anyone interested in Socialism should look into those attempts.
  If you want to learn more about Socialism and Communism, I recommend checking out my introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list.
  
  There is also the great Documentary by Plastic Pills Project Cybersyn & The CIA Coup in Chile
  
  Marx mentioned

The description of the first primitive church in Jerusalem is very close to an ideal anarchist commune.

And no one has to work, they are provided with everything they need. Almost like a universal basic income or something.
- More like post-scarcity. I don't think even the wildest leftist thinks we're quite there yet.
  
  On calories housing and most everyday things we are post scarcity if we ignore distribution. In fact we over commission and under deliver all these things. We over produce food by a factor of around 1.5, housing is much less transferable but even there we're unbelievably wastefull, energy is basically the only thing that isn't outright overproduced but really only because when we have cheap energy we just tend to use it, often to produce more stuff.
  So imo we are by bookkeeping standards post scarcity, delivery/distribution is just fucked and partially because of that we are creating tons of waste.
  We could all live in comfort and those who want to could work less, and none of this would break. The real world economy(things, energy, housing , food, water, logistics capabilities...) is so large and secure it could support the world population. If not for the barriers and assumptions, the intrinsic I've got mine fuck you of the systems.
  For me that is being there, and I hope that even if you can't agree on that point, it at least illustrates that we are incredibly close to post scarcity.
  
  I actually take a critical eye to the word "work" itself and think that it's too encompassing a term. In our society it's a blanket word that covers all labor. From punitive, fruitless toil all the way up to invigorating, actualizing applications of trained skill. Lots of what we call "work" are actually things we could want for ourselves in a utopia and would miss without, while IRL we're currently on the crest of an economic trend in which the majority of society are trapped in ultimately meaningless and forgettable toil under wage coercion. Literally just being kept occupied and oppressed.
  Put very simply I think you can slice our current idea of what work is into two halves, work that removes happiness from ourselves and society and work that adds happiness to ourselves and society. As utopians I think a society that contains only the latter is a reasonable prize to keep our eyes on.

Sadly... that doesn't really track with Christianity.
I mean you can add the overall benefits of everyones needs are automatically met. There's no talk of toiling for food etc...
But on top of the automatic fact that angels clearly have a hierarchy, god is clearly a full power ruler, there's tons of verses that talk about people that will be the least in heaven, or greatest in heaven (Matthew 5:19). On top of building treasures in heaven (Matthew 6:19) etc...
- Core spirituality vs institutional religious baggage
- military like hierarchy of the church.

.
- .

difference is that in heaven people dont have need to produce, so presumably no means of production even exist

Shoutout to my boy Camilo Torres who famously said, "If Jesus was alive today he'd be a guerrillero."

Even the more devout Christians I know (who actually have opinions about different theological positions) believe Earth and human society should not be modeled on heaven and attempts to do so will fail due to humans being inherently / essentially Fallen. This is part of how they rationalize their resistance / apathy towards movements for justice, at the very least they believe it is futile to seek justice in this life.
- Seek out and meet a christian anarchist. Those folks are badass and will change your idea of christianity's potential (I'm agnostic).
  
  My concept of Christianity is rather expansive, and Christian anarchists are often inspired by Tolstoy, who is someone I have read about and whose works I have given some attention. I can confirm they are rather different than most Christians - Tolstoy in particular rejected the Church after he saw they were committed to enabling war, which is clearly un-Christian. Dorothy Day is another relevant Christian anarchist, and I have worked with a Catholic Workers House locally, so I have some IRL exposure to these folks as well.
  I tend to think "Christian" is an almost meaningless term without more context or clarification, people who call themselves Christians hold opposite views on many different positions. "Buddhism" is no different, if anything it is worse, so this isn't particular to Christianity. Nor is it particular to religion, Marx spent some time in the Communism Manifesto clarifying what he meant by "socialism" and the different kinds of socialism he was aware of - there are many such overloaded terms and concepts. It seems particularly common in any political context, where there is power struggle it seems there are struggles between meanings for a particular word.
- This is part of how they rationalize their resistance / apathy towards movements for justice, at the very least they believe it is futile to seek justice in this life.
  Sounds like bullshit an unjust leader would feed them.
  
  It is religion ...
- Yes it is doomed to fail. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, at least help those in need. You know like our prophet/priest/king has told us to.
  
  Also, the bible tells us literally nothing about how heaven actually works or what people even do there. Meanwhile Marx wrote extensively about how he thinks a communist system would work. Heaven is not a "system" we can conceivably implement, because there's nothing to implement. It's just an abstract concept, and a very broad and ambiguous one at that.
  
  I don't agree that it is doomed to fail, but I also don't believe humans are inherently Fallen, and especially not in the particular soteriological sense that Christians believe (i.e. all later generations have inherited the guilt from the single act of disobedience by Adam & Eve dooming all of humanity to endless toil and suffering, as well as an evil nature).
  That said, I do think humans behave in sometimes predictable ways, and it might be useful to look at what kinds of choices about society might alleviate suffering and promote well-being and fairness in society.
  That said, I don't think that's going to happen without significant social upheaval, and that itself seems to bring about a lot of violence and the kinds of suffering I think we should all avoid ... so, yeah - these are hard problems.

Well that description suits better anarchism. Also Heaven doesn't exist it was invented by catholic church like many other stuff they made out of nowhere. Christian God wants to make a non-human monarchy (so God and Jesus as king) and remove all human based States. So pretty much not a communist. Of course you can argue is not anarchism either and is just common monarchy, since there is still some form of authoritarianism, even if not human-based, but from my personal perspective if it truly were a perfect reign I wouldn't mind at all
- if it truly were a perfect reign I wouldn't mind at all
  You wouldn't care about somebody else having total control over you?
  
  if it were a truly perfect reign, I imagine it would be more about balance and harmony, not control in the traditional sense. After all, if such an entity exists, it would ideally know what’s best for everyone. But yeah, I understand how the idea of total authority, even in a utopian context, can raise concerns. It’s a pretty complex topic.

“Not like that!” My dads response when I tell him Jesus was a communist.

Is the 0 getting around a commie filter or?
- It's 0 because communism is a moneyless system
  
  Shit i have got to read more the0ry

Ooh, baby, do you know what that's worth?

Well, it does not have an economy, so why would it have money?
Also, it doesn't have politics and society in the conventional sense, but men are clearly subordinate to God. Christ is king, this is the way Christians think, so I am not sure this is a correct comparison.
The question of "should Christians strive for a classless society" is a complex one. Egalitarian ideals are very new compared to Christianity, but some Christians now think that in the "fallen world" authority is undesirable as it can be abused. This is not common though.
However, Marxism is an anti-religious ideology. Marxists both believe that religion will disappear after "the base" changes and it will become, ultimately, obsolete, and also have historically persecuted and enacted violence on Christians. So I am not surprised there are not many Marxist Christians.
- "the question of "should Christians strive for a classless society" is a complex one."
  Not to the early Christians it wasn't. The early Christians movements (before they were co-opted by Empire) were radically egalitarian.
  
  You could literally describe early christianity as the spiritual arm of a revolutionary front.
  
  Sure, but comparing what people thought 2000 years ago to what they think now is a fruitless endeavor.
  The concept of democracy came about around that time too (at least the Greek one, which arguably wasn't the first but I digress) but should we exclude women and foreigners from it? That's what the early proponents of democracy wanted.
  
  Not to the early Christians it wasn't. The early Christians movements (before they were co-opted by Empire) were radically egalitarian.
  That would be irrelevant even if it was true. We are not in the second century. It is a very controversial position either way.
  Egalitarian values certainly did emerge out of Christianity, and there was a change in that direction even then, but they were not egalitarian in the modern sense.
  Also, please be careful when generalising early Christianty, as it was a very diverse group of sects that hardly agreed on anything.
  Early religious communities sometimes were very accepting, and women played a role as well, but they still existed in a very patriarchal culture, so you should not expect their women to be equal to men in society, and there were absolutely positions of authority.
  They opposed the empire because initially, they were not perceived by anyone as a group distinct from Jews, which were very hostile to it. However, there were appeals made by powerful Christians later to be recognized as a non-threat to imperial power, and ultimately, they succeeded.
  Even so, the Jews simply wanted independence, not equality. The idea of social equality did not even exist then. They were equal in Christ, not in society.
  Christianity was not coopted by the empire, it conquered it.
  The idea that early christianity was somehow "more pure" I do not accept as well. I would say the Christian tradition has only been enriched over the years, and without a unified basic set of dogmas it would really make much sense.
- Egalitarian ideals are very new compared to Christianity
  Run that one by Jesus and I think he'd be surprised

Communism is stateless ?? LMAO. OP has no clue what communism really is
- Communism is stateless, but not without government, or what Engels calls "The Administration of Things." For Marx, the "state" is made up of the instruments of society that uphold class distinctions, such as private property rights, and special bodies of armed people for those purposes. Public ownership and socialized ownership quite literally makes those aspects of society redundant, and thus "whithers away."
  
  So it's stateless but there's a state according to the common definition but not according to a different definition that is less common. Got it.
  
  Yes, and eggs are perfect spheres in Vacuum. In real world, any and every attempt at communism will lead to a situation where government becomes an all encompassing over bearing State. that's why Socialism is a far better and much more practical model than communism ever will be.

lots of unironic communists on lemmy?
- Yep! Lemmy is primarily developed by Marxist-Leninists, and is generally structured in opposition to Capitalist networks. It allows Communists to form our own spaces without corporate censorship.
  
  Which is why it's a big irony when people come to Lemmy to complain about communism/socialism.
  Like, man, you are on a decentralized network run by volunteers who don't want to be monetized. You want to enjoy the benefits of socialism but at the same time complain about how bad it is and promote capitalism.
- Yeah, it was literally created by communists
  
  Libs when free, open source, distributed and community supported platforms are not made by people who love capitalism and corporations 🤯🤯🤯🤯
- Yup, but Lemmy is a federated service so if that fact makes you uncomfortable or something you can always spin up a liberal instance with corporations and classism.
- Unfortunately, yes. Ignore the downvotes from the the mad people, and prepare your blocklist. It's your right, after all.
  
  Or... perhaps... talk to people and try to understand why they think the way they do. Who knows, maybe you'd hear something that makes sense. Just an idea! :D

Ooh baby, do you know what that's worth?

OP is gonna get banned by the admins for implying communism is stateless
- Why would OP be banned for that? That's what Marx literally stated. Marxists and Anarchists have different views on what the state is though, and thus both how to get rid of it and the final structure, so trying to claim Marx was using the Anarchist definition of the state to try to take the stance that Marx was an advocate for decentralized cooperatives and communes as a solution is wrong, if that was your implication.
  Marxists see the state as an implementation of class oppression, Anarchists see it as a tool of hierarchy. As a consequence, Marxists see Communism as a fully publicly owned and planned, democratic government, while Anarchists want decentralized networks of Communes. For Marxists, the Anarchist solution retains class distinctions as each commune only has internal ownership and thus class is retained, while for Anarchists the Marxist solution retains the state as it retains hierarchy.
  This struggle over analysis drives the major distinctions between each major school of Leftist thought. That doesn’t mean we do not share a common anti-capitalist and anti-Imperialist struggle, but it does mean the strategies and ends are different. If it was simply a question of strategy and timeline specifically, there would not be as much friction outside of explicitly non-sectarian spaces.
- Lemmy.ml is run by MLs for the most part, so even if this isn't an explicitly Communist instance there is Communist sympathy. The user you are replying to takes issue with that.
- You know Marx said this right? Like that's the end goal.
  
  Yes, I know communism is stateless. You shouldn't be so willing to think other people don't know what they're talking about. You should be more charitable.
- It is, pretty much every communist including ML's here fully accept and support the notion that communism at the end is going to be stateless, as the state itself would become unnecessary. The differences come from the means which this end would be achieved.
  
  I do feel that that wording can cause confusion. Marxists and Anarchists have a different view of what the state even is to begin with, and thus very different end goals. Marxists see the state as an implementation of class oppression, Anarchists see it as a tool of hierarchy.
  As a consequence, Marxists see Communism as a fully publicly owned and planned, democratic government, while Anarchists want decentralized networks of Communes. For Marxists, the Anarchist solution retains class distinctions as each commune only has internal ownership and thus class is retained, while for Anarchists the Marxist solution retains the state as it retains hierarchy.
  This struggle over analysis drives the major distinctions between each major school of Leftist thought. That doesn't mean we do not share a common anti-capitalist and anti-Imperialist struggle, but it does mean the strategies and ends are different. If it was simply a question of strategy and timeline specifically, there would not be as much friction outside of explicitly non-sectarian spaces.
  
  The end? No, no, no. The point where the state is abolished is the beginning. We don't pack up and go home after we abolish the state. We live in the world we created. Everything before the state is abolished is preamble.