The first use of this word was recorded in 1857. That's almost 2 k years later. The Communist Manifesto was a bit later too. So what you have is what I have always said. Religion is not bad, atheist using religion to subvert countries and populaces are what is bad and it always comes from Government! Here is the actual definition: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control Debunked quickly.
How does this have anything to do with your argument that personal responsibility separates Christianity from collectivism?
It was a single man, a private business owner, not a government.
You are focusing your attention on such a minute detail, irrelevant to the story, You are arguing that one of the lessons of the parable is that a landowner provided charity. The vineyard is referenced merely to make a comparison to God in the kingdom of heaven:
For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder.
Do you really expect Matthew to reference a commune? Like a high school English teacher watching a film by Stanley Kubrick, you are finding meaning where there is none. In reality, the parable is not only a message to followers, that all with good conscience regardless of how or when they arrived, will be saved, but it is also an example of good action. One can easily render this lesson onto the state, again. Undoubtedly you will reference:
Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?
In other words, do you question the will of God? As God created the Earth and the men who roam it, his judgment is his prerogative, and if he chooses to forgive, we have no right to question it.
Socialism is not a collective, but collectivism, same as communism.
Collectivism refers to any form of government that prioritizes the group over the individual, these include socialism and communism.
All belongs to the state, for the state and by the state.
No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism
That is an oxymoron. That's two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Again, these are individuals in a social construct of choice! That means they made a decision, not a government. Starting to get the hint?
I'm not sure how paying taxes to the state to provide charity is akin to that. Not quite the 51% oppressing the 49%. If this is truly what you believe, you should expatriate yourself entirely. You should not participate in any function of the state if you can not accept what is achieved democratically because you do not agree with it. Do not drive on my roads; do not ride on my buses; do not fly through my airports. When you utilize this infrastructure, you are agreeing to participate in our democratic system. Otherwise, build your own.
You are forgetting that religion is willful for individuals, not so much with governments who enforce from the point of a gun barrel.
Say what you will about this country, the assumption you must make for this statement, that governments can not be democratic, is nonsensical. To deny your democratically elected government is to deny your neighbors. You are forced by the barrel of a gun only if you leech from your neighbors and refuse to contribute. If you don't like the system, no one will stop you from leaving.
Jesus didn't even endorse taxes because they were corrupted. In fact, the Jews detested them because they were unfair and against their beliefs.
Yes he did, no they didn't. He many have spurned tax collectors, he did not damn them. You are the apostate here. You will find few in your own community who will agree with you.
Hell of a gallop.