Jesus was a communist

You heard that sort of right - Jesus was a communist.

Or, rather... Jesus really didn't take a stand on it in any direction, except to say that people who live by the law die by the law, and that love is bigger than all of that.

So, perhaps it's better to say that Paul was a communist.  As were the disciples.

But here we have to draw a distinction between communist and Communist.  A Communist is someone who follows after the pattern of Stalin and Lenin, etc., someone who believes that the people should control the means of production, because theoretically the only way that people will accept that control is through military totalitarianism.  A communist, however, is someone who believes in communal living - that is, that within the community, all people work together, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.  It does not depend on a strong military, but it does depend on people buying into the idea of communal living and having some limited idea of leadership.

We get to see this play out in the Bible.  In Acts 4, we see the believers sharing their possessions:

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.  With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. (Acts 4:32-35)

So, the apostles - the spiritual leaders of the community - were also the political leaders of the community.  This should not be a recommendation for spiritual leaders to always be political leaders (after all - imagine if Judas had not killed himself and had remained one of the Twelve).  Rather, these particular leaders were anointed by God as witnessed by the faithful, through not only the calling from Christ, but also from the appearance of the Holy Spirit as fire upon their heads.  It was a clear sign of their election by God.  We have no such clear signs today.

Nevertheless, people lived communally, and shared all they had together within the community.  And it worked, because there were those who were generous enough to donate to the needs of the community and fortunate enough that they had the money available to sell.  There's no indication that those who sold their land had any belief or request that those who didn't own land or those who weren't working shouldn't be eligible to receive.

This was a community in which those with money and means lived the example of Christ to those who did not have.  Remember the story of the rich man who asked Jesus:

“Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
“Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”
“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. (Matthew 19:16-22)

The story here is that the rich man didn't truly love his neighbor, because he had great wealth.  In giving away his wealth, he would show that he loved others more than himself, that he was willing to sacrifice everything for the love of God.

When those who lived communally did exactly what this rich man seemed hesitant to do and was depressed by the thought of doing, selling all they had and giving to the community, they were taken care of.  They did not suddenly have to worry about where they would live and what they would eat, because the Apostles distributing their wealth could take care of them.  Within the community, it was safe to distribute money in this way, and so while they certainly still had to take a great leap of faith and sacrifice of themselves, they still had security for their futures.

It was social welfare.  There are those who argue that no, that's not what we should take away from this, because it wasn't a legally-enforced social welfare - and they are somewhat correct.  However, the social pressure was, nonetheless, there.  Ananias and Sapphira, who a chapter later did the same thing but secretly held some back, surely sold everything they had to make it appear like they were just as holy as their brethren.  They felt pressured to give as others had done, even if such pressure was not overt.  Their sin was that they wanted the best of both worlds - their greed and the respect of their peers - without realizing that the real reason for selling everything they had and giving to the community was one of love for the community.  They were not required to do it, but they were rewarded for doing it, both by social respect and by the guarantee of care from the Apostles.

We have no such reward system in place today.  Our social welfare system does not guarantee a livable minimum of care.  Rather, it guarantees a completely impoverished minimum of care, jeopardizing the physical and mental health of those who would enter into it.  Imagine giving away everything you own today.  No one would take that money and reinvest it in you - rather, they would take that money and distribute it far and wide.  And, while you might have enough income to support yourself, you would have to buy a new car just to get to work, clothes to work in, utensils to cook your food, and so on.  There is a minimum of stuff you would have to re-buy - and, if you couldn't, you'd lose your job and be unable to support yourself.  In our country, it is impossible to literally sell all you have and give to the poor.

But that is still what Christ would recommend, for you to truly understand love for your fellow man and trust in the Lord.

Many years ago, compassionate Christians took a different approach to care for their fellow man.  It was compassionate Christianity that gave us welfare.  It was compassionate Christianity that gave us medicare.  It was compassionate Christianity that gave us food stamps.  It was compassionate Christianity that gave us social security.  Christians understood that they had a responsibility to ensure a minimum level of care for their fellow man.  They chose as an electorate to do this thing from a tax-supported position, despite the fact that the Bible didn't outright command such a position, because it was the only way of instituting communal living of the type enjoyed and employed by the early Christian Church.  Donations have never been, and are certainly not now, enough to fund the difference.

Part of that is because the minimum is so low.  To allow all of us who are able to support ourselves to sell all we have and give to the poor, we would need certain guarantees:
1. That we will have transportation to and from work.  This means that an infrastructure of public transportation must be established where it doesn't exist and improved where it does, so that when we sell our car to give the money to the poor, we can still get to work.
2. That we will have shelter.  This means both shelter from the elements and security from those who mean us harm.  Public housing must be free of cockroaches and drug dealers.  It must be safe for a person who has given everything to the poor to walk alone at night as he or she comes home from a job.
3. That we will have food and water.  This means that food must be available so that those who give all they have can still have a hot, healthy meal.
4. That we will have clothing.  Yes, you already know I'm a nudist, and if we could go to work naked that'd be swell.  But, there are times when clothing is a necessity - to block the light of the sun, to warm in the cold winter months, to protect our skin from hail or insects or brambles.  The person who sells all he or she owns and gives to the poor will still need to be dressed to get to work - all the time unless you want to humor my nudist side, and a significant amount of the time even if you do.
5. That we will have health care.  Someone who gives all he or she owns to the poor should not have to sacrifice his or her health to do so.
6. That we will have education.  Someone who gives all he or she owns to the poor should still be able to learn new things that will further his or her employment.

In such a society, a person could potentially sell all they have and give to the poor repeatedly, without fear for the future.