Baila
9mo ago
Because my fingers are running faster than my brain. p = !p or a = !a is the point. Thanks for the heads up.
Baila
9mo ago
It is universalist. Cultural relativism squares perfectly because the thing that the left is trying to make universal is the elimination of distinctions. Cultural relativism is an argument they derived from the dialectical method, which is the name for the rhetorical technique they use to eliminate distinctions. 'Its not that your morals are wrong, its that the concept of morals is broader than you think, your morals are really just one aspect of a much wider conception of morality, and viewed this way, all moral perspectives are really just the same, aren't they?'
Its a religious war, not a culture war.
The left hates everything non-left because the fundamental tenet of their religion is the erasure of distinctions. As I posted downthread:
I'm not sure I agree with NRx that extreme blank slatism and communism were inevitable extrapolations of liberalism; that as soon Jefferson penned "all men are created equal", CRT and HAES were a matter of time.
To clarify the timeline, the Identicals have been preaching and attempting to enforce blank slatism, and the erasure of all distinctions whatever, for thousands of years before Jefferson was even born.
The identicals force us to believe that being is identical to nothing. That p = !p in the literal and metaphysical sense. Kabbalah did it, the gnostics and hermetics did it, Hegel ("Nothing is, therefore...altogether the same as, pure being.") said so, and so on. Blank slatism and HAES are just modern Identicals finding new domains in which they can enforce the belief that everything is really just the same as everything else. Fat is healthy. All people are equally capable of all things. p = !p.
The left hate the non-left for their existence, as their existence itself is a fundamental distinction between persons which must be eliminated.
Baila
9mo ago
I think the there is an opening along the culture war’s line of contact in the zone of religious behavior. Specifically, that the non-left has the opportunity to take ground among the growing percentage of persons who do not believe in god.
I assume that there is general agreement on the following points:
-
religiosity, in general, is on the decline. Pew’s longitudinal religious landscape study tracks associated metrics, as do many others.
-
many individuals and groups are experiencing negative outcomes due to the overall decline in religiosity. There is the often talked about crisis of meaning, the declining birthrates particularly among the non-religious, etc.
-
putting aside the question of whether or not the leftism is a religion (a proposition I support), that the general decline in religiosity is broadly favorable to leftists.
Taken the above as weak, but broadly agreed upon, I would also argue that, similar to @erwgv3g34 post on Scott’s Kolmogorov Complicity and the Parable of Lightning, the cat is largely out of the proverbial bag on the question of whether or not any particular diety or similar set of theological claims is true. To be clear, I don’t think that every single person will inevitably believe that god doesn’t exist. I do think, however, that there is sufficient atheism, and scientific thinking and knowledge in our society that significantly many people cannot be convinced to believe or to feign belief.
The avowedly religious probably think that this state of affairs is an unalloyed, net negative, but is it? Returning to the generally agreed upon points at the top, there is a growing number of people who don’t believe in god, but are suffering and seeking out the type of benefits that religion classically provides. From the perspective of these atheists, all religions are obviously false in the sense that god doesn’t exist, but religiosity is still important and desirable.
Accordingly, I think there is a lot of ground to be gained by offering these people a way to participate in religion that doesn’t, in Scott’s words, make them insist that lightning comes after thunder. I think there is an opportunity for something like a Christian Atheism, where people can feel connected to the obviously Christian origins of American culture, can participate in group rituals and be supported by a moral framework that they obviously desire, but without the humiliation of professing that thunder comes first.
Is there a good analogy for something like this? I’m not sure. Secular Judaism is the model that comes to mind but I’m sure there are other examples.
Is this optimal from the perspective of the faithful? No. But so what? The devout are hemorrhaging adherents and the only other game in town is the enemy’s.
If I was the Catholic Church or [insert non-Catholic denominational leadership], I would be funding such groups as hard as possible and conditioning my political donations on candidates plugging the idea in their stump speeches. Obviously, I would prefer them to come to Jesus. But if they aren’t coming to Jesus anyway, surely I would prefer to funnel those people into a group where they can proudly and honestly proclaim that ‘of course Jesus isn’t real, but that’s not the point; the 10 commandments have served our people well for 2 thousand years because they work and you should follow them too.’
I think a well crafted message along these lines could be highly effective in the current environment.
I'm not sure I agree with NRx that extreme blank slatism and communism were inevitable extrapolations of liberalism; that as soon Jefferson penned "all men are created equal", CRT and HAES were a matter of time.
To clarify the timeline, the Identicals have been preaching and attempting to enforce blank slatism, and the erasure of all distinctions whatever, for thousands of years before Jefferson was even born.
The identicals force us to believe that being is identical to nothing. That p = !p in the literal and metaphysical sense. Kabbalah did it, the gnostics and hermetics did it, Hegel ("Nothing is, therefore...altogether the same as, pure being.") said so, and so on. Blank slatism and HAES are just modern Identicals finding new domains in which they can enforce the belief that everything is really just the same as everything else. Fat is healthy. All people are equally capable of all things. p = !p.
Baila
9mo ago
I appreciate you taking the time to engage with my post but I think this comment is more heat than light.
In the context of a uniquely anti-government revolution and civil war, man notorious for anti-government writings is imprisoned for treason in tower of London, from which writes pamphlet insisting he isn't treasonous.
I don't think that's a good standard of evidence. But more importantly, I don't think that your criticism of Shafarevich's characterization of Walwyn suits your claim that:
This book seems to distort almost everything it touches. I don't have the time to pick apart everything so I'll tackle only one quote, but the problem is more general...If you scratch basically anywhere in the text, you'll find similar intellectually indefensible omissions and distortions that are only plausible if you're not actually familiar with the source material.
If that is your contention, I would appreciate your thoughts more directly on the thesis of the book itself. For example, do you disagree with Shafarevich's characterization of socialist morality? Or his thesis that socialist morality is consistent across time? Criticism on those, central aspects of his work would be better suited to your claim. "Walwyn said he wasn't guilty so Shafarevich's entire thesis is wrong and unworthy of attention" is just poisoning the well.
Baila
9mo ago
A summary of The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich
A free online version of the text can be found here.
The first entry in this series was lost in the 02/24 site rollback. This post will cover the first chapter of part one, and the first section of the second chapter.
Part One: Chapter 1: The Socialism of Antiquity (p. 23-33)
In Chapter 1, Shafarevich examines socialism and socialist themes in ancient societies and literature. He begins with a discussion of Plato’s Republic, which represents chiliastic socialism in its ideal form. He then examines how the ideals of Plato’s Republic can be found throughout the ancient world, in the utopian writings of other Hellenistic authors, in the teachings of religious sects which sprung up around early Christianity, and in the desired of mass-movements of the pre-medieval era.
The Republic sets out Plato’s vision of the perfect state. The essential quality of this ideal state is justice, which Plato defines as meaning “that each one man must perform one social service in the state for which his nature was best adapted. (433a).” From this axiom, Plato’s ideal republic is stratified into four castes: philosophers, guardians, artisans, and peasants. The castes are rigidly structured and largely hereditary, with artisans and peasants prevented from upward mobility. Guardians may be demoted for poor behavior.
The philosophers are men with gnosis, “the kind of knowledge which reveals to them something of that essence which is eternal, and is not wandering between the two poles of generation and decay….such a man will not suppose death to be terrible (485b-486b).” Because of their special knowledge, the philosophers wield absolute power. They control the guardians, who are raised from birth as child soldiers meant to have the temperament of obedient guard dogs who neither “by sorcery nor by force can be brought to expel from their souls…this conviction that they must do what is best for the state. (412e).”
The philosophers inculcate obedience through compulsory education from birth to the age of thirty-five. Strict censorship over all information, especially art, is exercised to eliminate the possibility of children becoming aware of any concept which was not specifically designed to support the state. Censorship extends to speech and there is a strict moratorium on any talk implying that death is frightening, of the injustice of fate, of criticism against the state, any manifestation of fear, grief, famine or death. All lying is forbidden, except for the philosophers, who are encouraged to lie in order to ensure that the other castes remain in absolute unity.
According to Plato, the absence of absolute unity among the people is the primary defect of all other states. In his view, the primary cause of disunity is the ability to conceive of differences between people, or to conceive of private property. “That city, then, is best ordered in which the greatest number use the expression 'mine' and 'not mine' of the same things in the same way. (462c)"
“The guardians' life is regulated accordingly.” Their communities are organized as military detachments. Private property and money are illegal. They are given strict diets and must eat communally. There is no freedom of movement.
As the concept of families would threaten to create differences between guardians, families are also strictly forbidden. Women are held in common and cannot cohabit privately with the men. Children are raised in common and cannot know their parents, nor can the parents know their children. Rather than marriage, the philosophers allow temporary unions for physical satisfaction and to ensure a stable population.
From this examination of Republic, Shafarevich concludes that Plato’s system is a “scheme for the destruction of the subtlest and most profound features of human personality and the reduction of human society to the level of an ant hill….[and] founded on the denial of personality…[and] egoism.”
Pivoting away from Plato, Shafarevich discusses the extensive utopian socialist literature in the Hellenistic era. Plato’s ascetic ideals where often replaced by friendlier utopian descriptions of happiness and free love. These ideals often played a role in sects which arose around the early Christian faith.
The sect of the Nicolaites, for example, preached the communality of property and women. In the second century, the Carpocratians, a gnostic sect located in Alexandria, taught that faith and love elevated man beyond morality and that distinctions between persons were evil:
"God's justice consists in community and equality….The Creator…established laws in accordance with his justice without distinguishing female from male, wise from humble and in general one thing from any other…. The private character of laws cuts and gnaws the community established by God's law. …'Mine' and 'thine' were spread to the detriment of community by virtue of the law…. Thus, God made everything common for man; according to the principles of communality, he joins man and woman…he has revealed justice demanding communality in conjunction with equality….they can possess all in common as the animals do…. For he himself invested us with desires, which moreover must be safeguarded as they are necessary for procreation. But even more laughable is the phrase 'your neighbor's wife,' for in this way that which is common is forcibly turned into private property. (7: p. 117)"
Similarly, Manicheism gave rise to many sects in the third and fourth centuries which professed socialist doctrines. In the fifth century, a Persian movement inspired by Manicheism and Mazdak taught that “contradictions, anger and violence are all related to women and material things” and therefore all women and material wealth must be held in common. This movement spread across the country. Historian Tabari wrote that "[f]requently, a man did not know his son nor the son his own father, and no one possessed enough to be guaranteed life and livelihood."
Part One: Chapter 2: The Socialism of the Heresies (p. 35-102)
In Chapter two, Shafarevich discusses the chiliastic socialism of the Christian heresies. Chapter two is split into two sections. First, Shafarevich conducts a general survey of chiliastic heresies and demonstrates key and consistent features of their theology, morality, and behavior. Second, Shafarevich more closely examines the role that the ideas of chiliastic socialism played in the overall ideologies of the heretical movements.
Part One: Chapter 2: Section 1: General Survey (p. 35-89)
Shafarevich’s general survey examines five heresies in largely chronological order: (1) the Cathars, (2) the Brethren of the Free Spirit and the Apostolic Brethren, (3) the Taborites, (4) the Anabaptists, and (5) sects in the English Revolution of 1648. This general survey provides a clear description of socialist theology, the link between theology and morality, and the results of putting that morality into practice.
Cathars (p. 35-41)
In this section, Shafarevich discusses the Cathars, a religious sect that played a pivotal role in the development and spread of chiliastic socialism. Shafarevich’s examination of the Cathars highlights several key themes, including the origins of socialist morality, the link between socialist morality and anti-human behavior, and the historical origin of socialism as a driver of mass-movements.
The Cathars (“the pure” in Greek) spread across Europe in the eleventh century. The movement came westward from Bulgaria in the wake of the Bogomil heresy of the preceding century. The Cathars were composed of many sub-sects and shared doctrines with other sects, chiefly the Albigenses. All of these groups are usually categorized as gnostic of Manichean heresies. For the sake of clarity and complexity, Shafarevich describes the beliefs common to all such groups.
The foundational contention of all these groups “was belief in the irreconcilable contradiction between the physical world, seen as the source of evil, and the spiritual world, seen as the essence of god” resulting in a great deal of dualism and the belief in two gods. The evil god created the material world while the good god created the spiritual world. They identified the god of the old testament to be the evil creator of the physical world, and the god of the new testament to be the good god of the spiritual world. Because of these views, they considered the material and spiritual realms to be irreconcilable and denied the bodily incarnation of Christ.
Material things, including their own bodies, were evil. They believed that their souls transmigrated through time and space, eventually ending up in their current bodies so as to receive liberation from the imprisonment of matter. “The ultimate goal and the ideal of all mankind was in principle universal suicide. This was conceived either as in the most direct sense…or through ceasing to bear children.”
This theology shaped the Cathars’ social structure. Although the hierarchy of the Catholic church was rejected outright, the Cathars’ had their own system. The Cathars were divided into two groups, the perfecti (or “perfect”) and the faithful. Like Plato’s philosophers, the clergy were drawn from the perfecti and were the only group privy to all doctrines of the sect, most of which was intentionally kept hidden from the faithful. The perfecti observed strict rules. They could neither touch women nor possess property (although they controlled the holdings of the sect). They could not keep a permanent dwelling and lived their lives in constant travel. In compensation for observing these rules, the faithful worshiped the perfecti as gods.
The Cathars’ theology also shaped their views on sin and salvation. The existence of free will was denied. Most persons, including the faithful, were trapped in their evil corporeal forms, and thus doomed to commit sinful behavior through no fault of their own. The perfecti, however, were incapable of sin by definition.
The society of the Cathars reflected many of the traits common to chiliastic socialism. Reproduction was the work of the devil and the sacraments, including matrimony, were denied. As the commandment to not commit adultery was the commandment of the evil god, some Cathars considered promiscuity to be free from sin. Writings of the period often accused the Cathars of practicing free love and holding women in common.
Eating meat or anything produced by sexual union was prohibited. Secular authority was also the work of evil, and so the Cathars rejected temporal laws, oaths, and arms. Contact with outsiders, except for proselytization, was often considered a sin. As property was of the material world, it was necessarily evil. Cathars preached that one could not be a true Christian unless property was held in common.
Although murder and violence were prohibited, exceptions were made for Catholics and Catholicism. Iconoclasm was common. Some sects systematically destroyed churches, killed priests, and burned crosses.
Catharism spread rapidly across Europe in the eleventh century. The heresy was particularly successful in southern France, where it was supported by the local nobility. The heresy was only routed out of France in the thirteenth century after several crusades and thirty years of warfare.
Brethren of the Free Spirit and the Apostolic Brethren (p. 41-46)
Moving on from the Cathars, Shafarevich next discusses two additional Christian heresies known as the Brethren of the Free Spirit and the Apostolic Brethren. Shafarevich’s discussion of these sects brings the praxis (a socialist term meaning a fusion of practice and theory) of socialist morality into sharp relief. It demonstrates the causal relationship between socialist morality and violent and amoral behavior. This section also shows the ideological roots of modern ‘humanist’ socialism in the man-as-divine theology of these chiliastic sects.
The Brethren of the Free Spirit and the Apostolic Brethren were influenced heavily by the twelfth century figures Joachim of Flore and Amalric of Bena. Joachim, an abbot, promulgated a doctrine he claimed was inspired by revelation, or gnosis. In essence, Joachim preached that the history of man involves progressively greater comprehension of god. History, for Joachim, was a predetermined process that could be calculated. Accordingly, he divided history into three epochs, the first of slavish submission, the second of filial obedience, and the third of freedom.
In the last epoch, the chosen “would abide in peace, freed from labor and suffering.” No one would understand “thine” or “mine.” It would be an era of perfection brought forth on earth by the hands of men.
Amalric taught a system of theology similar to Joachim’s. He conceived of history as a series of three stages of divine revelation. Amalric proclaimed that the third revelation had come, and that he and his followers had now become as Christ. Amalric’s new Christianity had three basic theses: (1) "God is all," (2) "Everything is One, for everything that is is God," and (3) "Whoever observes the law of love is above sin." Whoever followed these teachings could attain identity with God through ecstasy and was thus incapable of sin.
The “Free Spirits,” a sect with views very similar to Amalric’s teachings, arose in central Europe in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The Free Spirits believed that man could become transfigured into god by passing through many years of novitiate in the sect and renouncing all property, family, and will.
Shafarevich explains that the extant historical sources agree that the state of godliness meant that Free Spirits were the complete equal of god “without distinctions” and were thus liberated from all moral constraint. A Free Spirit is sovereign over all of creation and may dispose of it at will. Those who resist can be killed. As one Free Spirit wrote, “[l]et the whole state perish rather than he abstain from the demands of his nature.” Free Spirits thus despised the Catholic Church because its doctrines purported to restrict their absolute freedom of will. In this absolute freedom, Free Spirits were equal.
A Free Spirit broke completely with his past. “What had been blasphemy for him in the past (and remained so for "rude" folk) now became a sign of the end of one historical epoch and tie beginning of another —the new Eon.” Accordingly, orgiastic masses and worship of Lucifer were considered ideologically and morally desirable as heralding the new epoch.
The Free Spirits considered man as divine and that divinity was intended to destroy earthly and spiritual hierarchy. The biblical Adam was conceived not as a sinner but as the perfection of man, and played a central role in their teachings. Some called themselves “New Adams.” Here, Shafarevich rightly observes that the Free Spirits arguably represent “the first prototype of the humanist ideology which would later attain worldwide significance.”
Shafarevich examines the 1320s anti-papal uprising in Umbria as a vehicle to explain how the Free Spirits influenced social life. The Free Spirit ideology was widespread among the Umbrian nobles and permitted and ends-justified approach to violence. Whole towns were slaughtered. Like the Cathars, the godly Free Spirits were relatively few but surrounded themselves with the Beghards and Beguines, groups of poor, celibate men and women engaged in petty labor. These masses knew little about the radical nature of the doctrine. The masses were concerned with the aspects of the doctrine common to chiliastic socialism of all sorts. All extant institutions of society were rejected, including private property, family, church, and state. All was to be held in common. Marital sex was considered a sin.
The Brethren of the Free Spirit influenced a later Italian sect known as the Apostolic Brethren. This sect followed Joachim’s teachings and declared themselves the inheritors of a new spiritual world. “Everything was permitted in defense of the faith, any violence against enemies, while, at the same time, the persecution inflicted by the Catholic Church on the Apostolic Brethren was considered to be the gravest of crimes.” These ideas were put into practice in 1404. Five thousand members of the sect followed their leader, Dolcino, into the mountains of norther Italy and proceeded to raid the surrounding villages and destroy all trace of Catholicism. This war lasted for three years until the sect was put down by force.
Taborites (p. 46-51)
This section discusses the Taborites, a chiliastic sect which played a critical role in spreading socialist writings and beliefs across Europe. Shafarevich’s examination of the Taborites shows how the socialist’s calculus of moral praxis repeatedly and reliably escalates to genocide and the attempt to devolve society to the level of hunter gatherers. The Taborite’s belief that destroying libraries would hasten the coming of the utopia in which no one had need of books, for example, was driven by the same, intentional moral calculus that caused identical behavior in more recent socialists like Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.
The 1415 burning of Jan Hus gave rise to the Bohemian anti-Catholic movement of the Hussites, the radical faction of which was located in Tabor. Preachers from heretical sects across Europe came to Tabor. Chiliastic socialist theories were common, as were attempts to put them into practice.
The Taborite’s believed that the end of the current world, the “dominion of evil,” world would occur in 1420. This would be accomplished by their hands, and so all evil people needed to be exterminated forthwith. The Christian concept of mercy was abolished and replaced with a duty to revolutionary violence. “Anyone who protests against the shedding of the blood of Christ's enemies shall be cursed and punished just as these enemies are. All peasants who refuse to join the Taborites shall be destroyed together with their property. (19: p. 81)."
This violence would establish God’s Kingdom for the elect. Evil would not be fully exterminated, only subjugated to the good. Christ would return, and with him the good would be liberated from material restrictions. “No one would sow or reap.”
To put their theory into practice, the Taborites proclaimed that all institutions and laws must be abolished, including the church, whose wealth was to be redistributed to the populace. Churches and church symbols were thus destroyed wherever they were found. Many priests were tortured and killed. All personal property was confiscated from the group’s enemies. Libraries were also destroyed as they believed that in the world to come, there would be “no need for anyone to teach another. There would be no need for books or scriptures and all worldly wisdom will perish. (19: 159).”
In Taborite areas, all money was seized. All private property was banned. It was written that “[i]n the town of Tabor there is nothing which is mine or thine, but all possess everything in common and no one is to have anything apart, and whoever does is a sinner. (19: pp. 99-100).” Taborite preachers taught the communality of wives and, the abolition of marriage and of the family.
The emperor and the Pope launched crusades against the Hussites. However, the Hussites beat the crusaders back and launched a successful offensive campaign against neighboring countries across all of central Europe. The Pope was forced to make concessions and an agreement was reached with the Hussites in 1433. The Taborites rejected the agreement and were eventually destroyed in subsequent battles. These wars spread chiliastic ideas and writings across all of Europe.
Anabaptists (p. 51-57)
Following the Hussite wars, the reformation caused an upsurge in socialistic sentiment and the invention of the printing press magnified this effect. Socialist sentiment of the period was especially strong among Anabaptists, a sect which spread to Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Czechia, Denmark, Holland, and later, to England. This section highlights how socialist theology and morality became more expressly political and intentionally revolutionary.
Individuals within the sect called each other “brother” and were named by their enemies as Anabaptists for their rejection of baptism for the young and the practice of a second baptism for adults. Shafarevich describes the doctrine of the Anabaptists, which at this point should be very familiar. Anabaptists rejected the entire Catholic Church and all of its teachings which were not specifically present in the Gospels. They also believed the true meaning of the Gospels was revealed to every man through gnosis. Like the sects discussed above, Anabaptists rejected oaths, refused to participate in non-Anabaptist society, and considered murder to be a cardinal sin. Yet, in some periods, there were militant calls for the impious to be exterminated.
Anabaptists largely organized themselves like the Cathars. The movement was led by Apostles, who renounced marriage and property and lived a transient life. Apostles elected Bishops, who formed councils or “synods.” Often bishops from across Europe came together for synods. Anabaptist social views were highly variable, but the common threads of chiliastic socialism could be found throughout. One sect was described in the 16th century by Bullinger as follows:
They understood Christian freedom in a carnal sense. For they wished to be free of all laws, presuming that Christ had liberated them…Some of them, desperate libertines, seduced silly women into believing that they could not become spiritual without breaking wedlock. Others believed that if all things must be in common, then also wives. Still others said that after the new baptism they had been born anew and could not sin: only flesh sins…They set forth as a new monastic order rules regarding clothing…eating, drinking, sleeping, leisure, standing and walking about.
Continuing to chronicle the movement, Shafarevich describes that in the 1520s the Anabaptists “renounced the conspiratorial character of their activities and entered into an open struggle with the ‘world’ and the Catholic Church.” The second baptism was to be practiced openly.
Anabaptists failed to gain primary control of the Reformation and were exiled. After this period, Anabaptist social behavior began to more closely resemble Plato’s ideal republic. In St. Gall in 1525, Anabaptists forbade participation in public life and adopted a uniform of coarse gray fabric. In bohemia, Anabaptist communes strictly regimented all aspects of society, which were overseen by “good police.” Clothing, sleeping, and work were centrally and strictly prescribed. It was forbidden to cook for oneself or to eat alone. Unmarried men and women slept in sex-segregated dorms. Children were separated from parents and raised in common. Marriages were arranged. Occupations were assigned.
Anabaptism became increasingly revolutionary in Germany. The Zwickau Prophets considered science and the arts unnecessary. The leader of this group, Klaus Storch, proclaimed that all priests must be immediately exterminated “[f]or once the sheep are deprived of a leader, it will go easy with the sheep. Next it will be necessary to attack also those who fleece others, to seize their houses, plunder their property, and raze their castles to the ground." (28: p. 53).”
This surge coincided with the 1525 peasant war in Germany. The socialist teachings of this time are typified by Thomas Muntzer, who put chiliastic ideas into practice in the town of Muhlhausen. In 1534-35, Anabaptist militancy led to an outbreak of violence which Shafarevich characterizes as an attempt to bring about an Anabaptist revolution in northern Europe.
The town of Munster was the focal point of these events. Anabaptists gained control of the municipal council and subjugated the town. All property in the town was seized and made communal. Polygamy was introduced. Women of a certain age were forced to marry.
Revolt spread out from Munster and Anabaptists came from across Europe to join the revolution. The local catholic bishop called up an army and laid siege to the town. Within the town, Johann of Leyden was proclaimed king of the world, and he surrounded himself with wives and spent his time beheading recalcitrants. Munster was eventually taken by assault and the leadership executed.
Sects in the English Revolution of 1648 (p.57-63)
Finally, Shafarevich examines chiliastic socialism in the English Revolution of 1648. This section highlights the evolution of the man-as-divine socialist theology into a more explicit atheism. It also provides key developments in socialist literature, including the increasing focus on political socialism and express apologia for illegal and amoral behavior on socialist moral grounds.
Shafarevich traces chiliastic socialism in the 1648 revolution to a 1536 synod in Westphalia that resulted in a schism between Anabaptists. All parties involved agreed that Munster-style armed struggle was necessary, but they disagreed about whether they should enact the struggle immediately or in the future (a schism which has recurred among socialists identically throughout history, such as in the schism between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks). As a result of the schism, the militant faction emigrated to England and merged with the Lollards.
The 1648 revolution in England gave rise to a flurry of chiliastic sentiment. A Quaker book said of the suppression of Munster that “German tyrants, who literally like devils oppressed the souls and the bodies of the common folk….Their uprising was violent because their oppressors were still more violent.” A sect known as the Ranters arose which, like the Free Spirits, believed that good and evil were morally identical, man-made constructions. The Ranters denied morality and embraced an ostentatious amorality. They rejected property and marriage, and performed rituals which were parodies or inversions of Christian communion and marital sexual union.
Another sect, the Diggers, wrote literature which strongly echoes socialist writings of the modern period. Garrard Winstanley wrote pamphlets proclaiming the illegitimacy of private land ownership after these teachings were “revealed” to him in a vision. He wrote:
And so long as we or any other maintain this civil property, we consent still to hold the creation down under that bondage it groans under, and so we should hinder the work of restoration and sin against light that is given unto us, and so through the fear of die Resh (man) lose our peace. And that this civil property is the curse is manifest thus: those that buy and sell land, and are landlords, have got it either by oppression or murder or theft; and all landlords live in the breach of the seventh and eighth commandments, "Thou shalt not steal nor kill." ("The True Levellers' Standard Advanced: or. The State of Community opened, and Presented to the Sons of Men.") (35: p. 85)
Diggers were one part of the wider Leveller movement. In a manner almost indistinguishable from Marx, One Leveller, William Walwyn, argued that abolishing property would necessarily cause all people to behave in perfect moral unity, thus causing the government to wither away:
this would destroy all Government, answered, that then there would be no thieves, no covetous persons, no deceiving and abusing of one another, and so no need of Government." (32: pp. 185-186)
Similarly, A newspaper called “The Moderate” criticized the execution of a group of robbers on the grounds that the existence of private property “forces them to violate the law in order to sustain life.” Extreme Leveller groups advocated for terror. One such pamphlet was entitled “Removal Is Not Murder.”
Shafarevich notes that socialism and atheism were common among Leveller groups. Some of these writings “exhibit a purely rationalist spirit” and belong to the group of utopian socialist literature discussed in Chapter 3.
Baila
2yr ago
There is another option: recognize that socialism is a religion, an old religion, that has changed little over the millennia, and obtain a legal victory establishing this view in the courts.
I think everyone interested in this subject should read The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich available on archive.org for free or otherwise on Amazon. Thanks to Ilforte for this reference.
Paging @07mk @sliders1234 @aaa : I was going to reply to your comments but posted here instead.
Baila
2yr ago
Free speech, academic freedom, and colorblindness — long considered foundational principles of the Left...Feeling guilty about how white and male their movement is, more tolerant liberals have two options. They can bend over backward for diversity, which often means compromising their principles to achieve the right demographic balance.
This doesn't strike me as a steelman because it puts words in the mouths of the male liberals in question. Its only bending backwards if you assert that "Free speech, academic freedom, and colorblindness" are principles that they actually hold, or that subsuming those principles is in any way contrary to their world view. The liberals in question aren't "bending over backwards" at all.
Or they can ignore the issue, having no good answer to the question of why people should join a movement in which white males predominate.
Their answer is that everyone should join them and "progress" to the communist utopia at the end of the rainbow.
More to the point, why is this even an effective attack (on the members)?
Because both sides of the argument are a part of the same religion and the attack operates on faith and emotion, not on logic or reasoning. The "moderates" here already accept all of the priors and share the ultimate goals of the woke. The woke are just calling the moderates out for being insufficiently faithful and the moderates are choosing to capitulate rather than become apostates.
Baila
2yr ago
On the culture war and the dark arts of communication
How does the average person come to believe certain messages communicated to them about the culture war? The easiest answer is that this process happens sub or semi-consciously. As Moldbug's Cathedral points out, raising an individual from cradle to majority (or beyond) within a certain world view will, intentionally or unintentionally, impart that world view upon him to a greater or lesser degree. But I am interested in more specific and more practical answers.
We all spend a great deal of time and effort writing and arguing about the culture war but it seems obvious to me that most of the effort remains within a small community and its not in a form suitable for general consumption. But how can it be made suitable?
For example, given adult literacy (see here for examples of the levels) and IQ, what types, lengths, and complexities of messages is a person able to understand? And which of those messages become adopted as personal beliefs?
Take Moldbug or Marx. Clearly, the writings of either author are beyond the reach of the average person. What rules would guide the translation of these works into a form consumable by the average person? How many pieces would their works have to be broken up into? How many ideas could be contained in each piece? How many interactions with a given idea are necessary for a person to understand or agree with it? What grade-level should the text be written in? What tone or voice should be used? What changes are more effective for different segments of the population, men, women, rural, urban, etc.?
Surely there are people skilled in the dark arts of communication, advertising, and psychology which know how to translate* the sorts of things we discuss into a form consumable by the average person. Given that these disciplines are not new, surely there is a handbook of basic principles for crafting such messages? Do we have any practitioners of the dark arts that can provide such resources?
*I looked for an AI that can translate a given text into a text of substantially similar meaning but at a specified (lower) grade level. I have not found any such tool.
Great reply. The effort is much appreciated.
The thesis of the US Constitutional tradition is that God granted Americans certain rights, but since He isn't around to clarify what they actually mean, there is a priesthood (i.e. a group of wowzers who are educated at seminaries like Harvard and wear robes to the office) to do it. Regardless of the Constitutional text, the Supreme Court can take your rights away, or give you ones you don't want (like the Lochner right for bakers to work dangerously long hours). Because rights are granted by God, amending the Constitution to restrict them is seen as mildly sacrilegious.
I understand that your intent wasn't to give a full, technical description of the system of rights in the US, but this summary does not reflect the nature and origin of American rights. Americans have rights because America was established by Englishmen. English rights are, essentially, a series of rights derived from natural philosophy and Christianity combined with a long standing tradition of having such rights in fact, AKA the common law. The rights of Englishmen are essentially a birthright, and were viewed as such by the relevant players at the founding on all sides.
In any event, the rights of Englishmen in the colonies were thus transferred with the colonists as Englishmen, and through various legal instruments, crown charters, the courts established in the colonies which were common law courts, etc. Come the revolution, the common law persisted, and was officially recognized by the states by statue, and the common law rights most at issue in the revolution were recognized in the state and federal constitutions, etc.
So its not the case that "the US Constitutional tradition is that God granted Americans certain rights." Rather, God created the world(or the world is as it is), Englishmen have observed the world and decided upon certain rights according to natural philosophy and long-applied those rights, and Americans inherited and continued the rights of Englishmen and the whole common law system from which they are derived. As to interpretation, the common law has a built-in interpretative framework, so interpreting the law comes with a user manual, even though most people pretend it doesn't.
The reason why the right to keep and bear arms is protected in America but not elsewhere is not because the Second Amendment exists (RKBA is included in the English Bill of Rights as well, but we notoriously don't enjoy the right)
Although it apparently seems otherwise, I don't disagree that a strong culture and strong individual action are required to protect rights. This is obviously true. However, I do assert that American rights are unique from other rights because they come with the strongest institutional and procedural safeguards, and are formulated in the strongest manner.
Consider the example you provided about the RKBA in England. I agree that the English do have the right and that the crown is infringing upon that right moreso than the US federal government. More importantly, I would say that the reason the RKBA is protected in America but not elsewhere is literally because it says "shall not be infringed" in big bold letters right on the front of the box. To phrase it in the manner of the "strong culture" argument, I assert that the American framework of constitutional protection just described is the reason why we have the strong culture and institutional protections which protect the right. Its much easier to build and maintain a protective culture when the argument is as simple as, "see for yourself, it says 'shall not be infringed' right there and no more." In the practically identical Anglo cultures which took a different approach (UK, CAN, AU, NZ), the right is infringed to the point of practical elimination. Hence, I find that the US system of rights is indeed superior.
In addition, and in line with my original post, I find that a lot of people from cultures with less-protected rights than the US rely too heavily on the "strong culture" argument to insist that they have the same or stronger rights, when what they have is a prosperity derived from US power. I think people discount what their cultures and societies would be like, and what their legal systems would permit, if the US were not there to provide military and economic dominance. Its easy to shout "look how strong our culture of protecting rights is" from the EU when America guarantees and provides their prosperity. Things would look very different if the US packed up and went home.
I don't like this, but it Is, and rationality requires me to distinguish between what Is and what Should be. For this reason, and no other*, I am in favor of safety valves like the notwithstanding clause. If Doug Ford abuses the notwithstanding clause, and pays no political price for it, then the people of Ontario will have lost their rights due to laziness.
I'm not sure I follow this objection. I understand you to mean that people deserve whatever happens to them because they could have behaved differently in the past to avoid that outcome but did not. Why not eliminate the notwithstanding clause entirely to prevent its abuse and install American-strength rights? This will provide them with superior protection, and, if the people want them changed, then they can exercise their political will, and if they do not exercise their will, then the result is "due to laziness" but they still retain the superior protection.
Baila
2yr ago
If you really might need to arm the civilian population to mount a desperate defense, you just need the government to hold a large stockpile of small arms
Which is faster in the event of hostile invasion:
-
the government must recognize the need to arm the populous, organize the logistics, and execute the distribution of arms to the populous amidst the invasion
-
the populous is already armed
Which of the following provides a greater degree of military efficacy:
-
after arming the general population, the people so armed must either be trained or use the arms without training
-
the populace already has some degree of training
Baila
2yr ago
True, but I don't see that as much of an objection. I would take the Bill of Rights over the right to vote. Also, the fact that the notwithstanding clause doesn't apply to all rights in the Charter has no impact on Canadians' status as subjects of the Crown, and their subjugation to its authority.
Baila
2yr ago
The Constitution certainly does grant rights legally.
Can you expand on what you mean, here? The statement 'the Constitution...grant[s] rights legally' is literally false. Happy to supply evidence on this point. What evidence would you accept?
Baila
2yr ago
Given situations like https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55959133 , do you really find Canada to have better respect for rights?
Baila
2yr ago
The Constitution recognizes rights, it does not grant them. So, legally, the removal of the Fifth Amendment would have no effect. I also reject the validity of the 18th Amendment, but I digress.
In any event, the need to "repeal" a constitutional amendment before passing a law that violates said right is one more speedbump than the Canadian Charter has, as Parliament can just pass the law and invoke the notwithstanding clause, which seems to be evidence in favor of my claim that the Constitution is superior protector of rights.
Can the government(s) of Canada not just "notwithstanding" the Canadian version of the right against self-incrimination?
Edit:
The notwithstanding clause:
Section 33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.
The right you cited:
Section 11. Any person charged with an offence has the right: (c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence
Premise1: The notwithstanding clause applies to sections 7 to 15
Premise2: Section 11 is within sections 7 to 15
Conclusion1: the notwithstanding clause applies to section 11
Conclusion2: The Canadian government can legally write a law that prohibits section 11 from applying to Canadians by invoking the notwithstanding clause
Premise3: The Fifth Amendment would prevent the US government from passing a law as contemplated in Conclusion2
Conclusion3: Therefore, Canadians have less/fewer protections and less recourse for violations.
Technically, there would be no violation because the notwithstanding clause "makes it legal" as they say.
I am saying even if the paper rights are stronger in the US, the culture of rights is so much weaker that the paper rights get routinely violated.
You have to have rights to have a culture of rights. See also, Canadian firearms law, the recent handgun ban by fiat, the trucker protest, the monarchy, etc.
Baila
2yr ago
Do you mean to posit deeds as an exception to my statement "A contract which ends with "and party X promises to promise to perform in the future and, in any event, can unilaterally decide to perform or not perform its promises at any time without penalty" is not a contract in America or Canada or the UK, etc."?
If so, the same would apply to deeds. Its not the requirement of a writing that is the issue, but the words of conveyance. A deed which says "X promises that in the future X may promise to convey to Y, such and such real property..." is not a deed because X has not conveyed anything.
Baila
2yr ago
Showing 0 of 0 results for KulakRevolt
Did he not make the jump to the lifeboat (as far as we know)?
Baila
2yr ago
Civilian access to weapons increases defense against foreign adversaries in multiple ways. For example, the greater the level of access to, knowledge of, and experience with weapons among the populous, the more effective the military will be, as the military is composed of civilians.
Similarly, civilians with only partial training are themselves a substantial threat to an occupying force, foreign or domestic. As Russia is currently learning, occupying an area is accomplished by boots on the ground, not planes or tanks. Its hard to occupy a street corner or a field when every window or bush can hide an armed civilian. And as for the planes and tanks, the Russians are also learning that civilians armed with small arms and rockets can also perform rather effective defense with little if any training.
Indeed, as far as I am aware, Finland's entire military is constructed on the premise that, in the event of Russian invasion, rapid reaction forces composed of conscripts rush to the front, while the rest of the population is mobilized and molotov's are handed out to the babushkas.
I think a high degree of civilian weapons ownership would have obvious benefits here.
Baila
2yr ago
I am fairly skeptical of the idea that classical enlightenment era liberties are especially well protected by the US constitution.
If by this you mean to compare the Constitution to the laws of other nations, I believe that US rights are indeed "especially well protected." As I argued at the top of this comment, other nations do not have rights, but merely "rights" which, compared to the Constitution, are entirely unprotected.
If you mean an absolute level of protection, then I agree that the Constitution provides only partial protection, and a great deal of individual and cultural effort is required.
The US Constitution is just as much a piece of paper as the Charter. It falls to institutions of government and ultimately the people who compose and choose them to enforce those rights.
If by paper you mean "worthless" or "mere formality", I disagree. Again, refer to my comment above, specifically the section on the right against self-incrimination. The Constitution may be a piece of paper, but it is clearly and obviously not "just as much a piece of paper" as the Charter or the laws of England.
In others I think it's just a mindset that customary norms eventually become practically "constitutional". I think the UK is the clearest example of this.
There is so much evidence to the contrary that I do not believe that anyone sincerely holds this position. Consider the right against self-incrimination, one of England's most cherished and hard-won "customary norms." The right against self-incrimination indeed proved to be practically "constitutional" when it was eliminated for the uppity Irish in 1988 and for the rest of the country in 1994.
People have already pointed out that the King can do plenty of things on paper. Practically...
"On paper," meaning according to the laws of the UK (and essentially the rest of the commonwealth), the monarch:
-
is the sovereign and literal source of all legal authority
-
has the sovereign right to declare war and peace
-
has the sovereign right over all foreign affairs (which is why the monarch needs no passport, because it is the monarch's authority which requires and issues passports)
-
has the sovereign right to call, dismiss, prorogue, and recall parliament
-
has the sovereign right to assent and consent to the passage of all laws
-
owns all the land
-
doesn't pay taxes
-
etc.
This is indeed "plenty" of things.
Practically...
In my opinion, the belief that the monarch exerts no practical or effective political power is due chiefly to a combination of willful ignorance and propaganda. There are simply too many examples of power being exercised to believe otherwise.
For example, in 1975, the Australian parliament shut down over a budgetary impasse. The Queen, through her Governor General (a role commonly described as "merely ceremonial"), dismissed the Prime Minister, appointed a new one, passed a bill to fund the government, and then dismissed all of the other members of parliament, triggering new elections.
Consider also the power of Royal Assent, which is often trotted out as proof that the monarch is merely "ceremonial" and wields no political power. In order for a bill to become law, after it has passed through both houses, the monarch must give their Royal Assent. The glossary on the UK Parliament's website describes Royal Assent as "the Monarch's agreement that is required to make a Bill into an Act of Parliament. While the Monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent, nowadays this does not happen; the last such occasion was in 1708, and Royal Assent is regarded today as a formality." Emphasis mine.
It is admitted that the monarch has the right to refuse Royal Assent, but that right is handwaived away as a mere formality. Does the claim that 'Royal Assent is a formality' hold up to any degree of credible scrutiny? No.
In 2021, the Guardian published a series of reports ( well summarized by this article ) about the separate and distinct power of the Queen's Consent (Monarch's Consent).
Before any bill is introduced to Parliament, it must receive the monarch's consent.
The bills must be sent to the monarch's personal solicitors at least two weeks in advance. The solicitors then negotiate changes to the bill in exchange for the monarch's consent. Also, this can be done directly by the monarch in their regular (and legally required) consultations with the Prime Minister, which are entirely private, and of which no records are made. Oh, and assuming that there were any records made, all documents "relat[ing] to" communications with the sovereign or their agents have an absolute exemption from UK's FOIA.
As the Guardian discovered, the Queen used this power repeatedly, including for the purpose of preventing a law from revealing the size of her wealth. And the Guardian was only able to find this out because the parties involved didn't care enough to avoid putting the dealings to paper, and the relevant functionary forgot to stamp the documents as exempt from UK-FOIA.
So the monarch hasn't refused Assent in a long time...because the monarch has no reason to withhold Assent from a bill they already had the opportunity to alter through their power of Consent.
How very "ceremonial" a monarch...
@jiro @Tarnstellung
Happy to provide an answer but I need additional context:
- what is your level of knowledge about the UK's system of laws, the monarchy, and the commonwealth?
- are you a citizen of either the commonwealth or America?
Strong agree on your comments about the New Atheism movement that went hard left, entryism, and the value of canon. This is why my loose proposal was framed in terms of 'Christian Atheism' or secular Judaism, instead of an example without a canon actively policed by the actually/avowedly faithful.
More options
Context Copy link