Communism “Very Similar” to Christianity, Putin Claims

[devil21]

Communism would be a great thing if not for the fact that it would be comprised of humans. But since it is, it is always doomed for failure. Jesus preached to take care of each other. A great thought and one I support. Unfortunately things are way too far gone for that to be a viable solution now. Maybe try again after the giant meteor?

[r3volution 3.0]

No. Egalitarianism came out of enlightenment thinking, pantheism and atheism. The violent French Revolution was atheistic egalitarianism.

The Enlightenment originated in Protestant and low-church Catholic thought, following the Reformation, esp. during the French Wars of Religion and English Revolution (see the groups I cited above). By the time of the French Revolution, there was definitely an atheist element in play, but this is really just a continuation of the aforementioned. Atheism is, in a sense, the logical conclusion of low-church thinking (a good example being the transformation of 19th century Yankee pietism into 20th century atheist Progressivism).

Then when you go to the low church Calvinistic Baptists in early America, you see an insistence on liberty (but not egalitarianism).

In the 19th century, low-church groups voted overwhelming Republican (the leftist party of the day), while high-church groups voted overwhelmingly Democrat (the liberal party of the day). This is an historical fact. Around the turn of the 20th century, the pietists started calling themselves Progressives. Over time they became atheists (as did their low-church cousins in Europe) This is the origin of American Progressivism.

How did the seeds of federalism come out of the Reformations ecclesiastical decentralization? Read any of the several Presbyterian or Baptist Constitutions from the time period or shortly after. You can see the model for our own Constitution very clearly. This has been cited by several people.

And I'm not saying that is a good or bad thing, I'm a voluntarist, I don't think written Constitutions mean anything in the grand scheme of things. But it is the history.

Ecclesiastical leveling certainly sowed the seeds for democracy (that is not a good thing), but I'm not so sure about federalism. Even though federalism it fits within the general framework of leveling, and it's easy to see how low church thinking could promote federalism, I don't see how it actually did. First, unlike democracy, federalism was not a new and radical idea; in fact, it was the old idea (centralization was the new idea in early modern Europe). Second, despite the US (and the Netherlands, we might add) there was no big movement toward federalism.

P.S. One explanation for this might be that there's a tension between federalism and democracy (and also nationalism, which democracy unleashed). True believers in democracy have always tended to want the people to speak with a single Collective Voice (or whatever is the asinine slogan), and so the idea of dividing the people into different groups is problematic (we see this today with the controversy over the electoral college, which is "undemocratic"). As for nationalism, you might think it would encourage federalism, and in some circumstances it could, but more often the opposite. In an ethically homogeneous state, federalism means dividing the nation into groups (the very opposite of what nationalists want: see pan-German or pan-Italian movements in the 19th century). In an ethnically diverse state, federalism might seem like a perfect solution, but more often the nationalists in each group would rather have outright independence (see the Habsburg Empire in the 19th century). So, the point is, if low church thinking tended to encourage federalism, that was largely quashed by the democracy (and through that nationalism) which it also encouraged.

[Sola_Fide]

The Enlightenment originated in Protestant and low-church Catholic thought, following the Reformation, esp. during the French Wars of Religion and English Revolution (see the groups I cited above). By the time of the French Revolution, there was definitely an atheist element in play, but this is really just a continuation of the aforementioned. Atheism is, in a sense, the logical conclusion of low-church thinking (a good example being the transformation of 19th century Yankee pietism into 20th century atheist Progressivism).



In the 19th century, low-church groups voted overwhelming Republican (the leftist party of the day), while high-church groups voted overwhelmingly Democrat (the liberal party of the day). This is an historical fact. Around the turn of the 20th century, the pietists started calling themselves Progressives. Over time they became atheists (as did their low-church cousins in Europe) This is the origin of American Progressivism.



Ecclesiastical leveling certainly sowed the seeds for democracy (that is not a good thing), but I'm not so sure about federalism. Even though federalism it fits within the general framework of leveling, and it's easy to see how low church thinking could promote federalism, I don't see how it actually did. First, unlike democracy, federalism was not a new and radical idea; in fact, it was the old idea (centralization was the new idea in early modern Europe). Second, despite the US (and the Netherlands, we might add) there was no big movement toward federalism.

P.S. One explanation for this might be that there's a tension between federalism and democracy (and also nationalism, which democracy unleashed). True believers in democracy have always tended to want the people to speak with a single Collective Voice (or whatever is the asinine slogan), and so the idea of dividing the people into different groups is problematic (we see this today with the controversy over the electoral college, which is "undemocratic"). As for nationalism, you might think it would encourage federalism, and in some circumstances it could, but more often the opposite. In an ethically homogeneous state, federalism means dividing the nation into groups (the very opposite of what nationalists want: see pan-German or pan-Italian movements in the 19th century). In an ethnically diverse state, federalism might seem like a perfect solution, but more often the nationalists in each group would rather have outright independence (see the Habsburg Empire in the 19th century). So, the point is, if low church thinking tended to encourage federalism, that was largely quashed by the democracy (and through that nationalism) which it also encouraged.

The enlightenment came out of Protestant thought?? I'm sorry, that's obviously not the case. The Reformation stood squarely opposed to the Enlightenment. I don't know how you could say that.

[Anti Federalist]

So you just cite the New American AGAIN? PUH-LEEZE! LOLOL (doubling down doesn't make it more credible, fyi. I still don't particularly like Putin, but I like credible sources if/when I go after him.)

I liked the The New American, when the late, great Will Grigg was at the helm.

[r3volution 3.0]

The enlightenment came out of Protestant thought?? I'm sorry, that's obviously not the case.

As I've explained, with examples, both democracy and anti-capitalism had their origins in Protestant (or otherwise low-church) movements.

I've cited the Taborites, coercive Anabaptists, Diggers, Fifth Monarchy Men, Roundheads, Huguenots, Jansenists, and Yankees/Progressives.

Do you have a specific rebuttal? Are you claiming that those groups weren't low-church..?

[Superfluous Man]

Martin Luther was separated from Christ by fifteen centuries; does this mean there's no relation?

No. But in this case we can identify the connection clearly and specifically by showing Luther's heavy dependance on the the teachings of Jesus and the writings of the earliest followers of Jesus, as well as the continuous tradition of passing on those teachings within the Church over those 15 centuries. Luther's own stated goal was to bring the Church back to focus on those teachings of 15 centuries prior. If you doubt this, it can be easily proven by Luther's writings.

If you or raginfridus believe that we can show a similar dependence on John Hus by 20th century Progressives, I would like to see the actual evidence, not bare assertions.

Notice also that you seem to be conflating different things by the way you use egalitarianism (in all it's various forms) interchangeably with leftism. In your paradigm, classical liberalism was leftist, just as its polar opposite Progressivism was. Statism and anarchism are both leftist for you. Everything that's not monarchism is. You've given yourself an unfalsifiable position.

[r3volution 3.0]

If you or raginfridus believe that we can show a similar dependence on John Hus by 20th century Progressives, I would like to see the actual evidence, not bare assertions.

For the low church origins of Progressivism, see World War I as Fulfillment: Powers and the Intellectuals

https://mises.org/library/world-war-...-intellectuals

Notice also that you seem to be conflating different things by the way you use egalitarianism (in all it's various forms) interchangeably with leftism. In your paradigm, classical liberalism was leftist, just as its polar opposite Progressivism was. Statism and anarchism are both leftist for you. Everything that's not monarchism is. You've given yourself an unfalsifiable position.

Nowhere have I stated or implied that classical liberalism was leftist.

What I'm calling leftism is, as I thought I made pretty damn clear, political leveling (democracy) and economic leveling (socialism).

[Ender]

I liked the The New American, when the late, great Will Grigg was at the helm.

Same. Miss Grigg, tons.

[Superfluous Man]

For the low church origins of Progressivism, see World War I as Fulfillment: Powers and the Intellectuals

Again, not what I asked, and not related to the claim raginfridus made that I replied to in the first place.

I did a search for the string "hus" at that link, and not once occurrence was a mention of John Hus.

[r3volution 3.0]

I did a search for the string "hus" at that link, and not once occurrence was a mention of John Hus.

You can't fathom the connection between Hus and low-church Christianity?

[Superfluous Man]

You can't fathom the connection between Hus and low-church Christianity?

Sure I can. When you don't specify in what respect, there are all kinds of ways to draw connections between Hus and low-church Christianity.

But when you specify that you're talking specifically about connections between Hus and 20th century Progressivism, saying that Progressivism had some roots in low-church Christianity in some respects, and low-church Christianity had some connections to Hus in some respects, doesn't accomplish that.

Your inability to find any specific evidence connecting Progressivism to Hus is conspicuous. It's almost as if you don't actually know of any and can't find any when you look.

[r3volution 3.0]

Sure I can. When you don't specify in what respect, there are all kinds of ways to draw connections between Hus and low-church Christianity.

But when you specify that you're talking specifically about connections between Hus and 20th century Progressivism, saying that Progressivism had some roots in low-church Christianity in some respects, and low-church Christianity had some connections to Hus in some respects, doesn't accomplish that.

Your inability to find any specific evidence connecting Progressivism to Hus is conspicuous. It's almost as if you don't actually know of any and can't find any when you look.

I'm going to call it a day.

[Superfluous Man]

I'm going to call it a day.

Maybe @Raginfridus can come up with something. They've been pretty quiet since making the original outlandish claim about Progressivism being influenced by Hus.

[lilymc]

*Sigh*

[Raginfridus]

Maybe @Raginfridus can come up with something. They've been pretty quiet since making the original outlandish claim about Progressivism being influenced by Hus.

Men don't live long enough to corner the ideas market and stop others from adapting their bad ideas further. The 19th century's Progressives began in the low-church Protestant religions of America and England. It is what it is, sorry.

[Superfluous Man]

Men don't live long enough to corner the ideas market and stop others from adapting their bad ideas further. The 19th century's Progressives began in the low-church Protestant religions of America and England. It is what it is, sorry.

John Hus did go to England in the 1300's. But I doubt that many 19th century progressives knew or cared anything about that.

The claim you made, and the question I asked, was about John Hus.

Some citations of specific evidence that led you to that conclusion would be nice. Do you know of any?

[Ender]

I on the other hand have always thought that was probable, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be one where people voluntarily decided to commune together in collective economy. His definition and the Coercive Socialism are quite different I like to believe.

I think that a true Christian society would be completely voluntary, so from the outside it might look a bit like socialism/communism. But as a voluntary society, people would help each other and provide needs for each other because they wanted to- not because they were forced.

[Sola_Fide]

Men don't live long enough to corner the ideas market and stop others from adapting their bad ideas further. The 19th century's Progressives began in the low-church Protestant religions of America and England. It is what it is, sorry.

No that's not what it is. If you want to stretch it, you could say that the social gospel of the early 1900s played in to the progressive movement, but that was not simply "low church". It was basically "no church", because it rejected the Bible. Also, the Roman Catholic Church was just as much a progenitor. That is "high church".

And your assertion completely ignores the social Darwinism of the time period, which I argue is the true forerunner to progressivism. Also, you completely ignore the fact that the social gospel is in derogation of the Bible. It rejects God's moral law, whose foundation is property.

[Raginfridus]

Surely you don't mean we must be familiar with somebody to be influenced by them... Do you want me to detail in so many posts how Progressivism's conceits came to be over the centuries? Are you going to read and consider everything I post if I do? (Can I charge you for the service?) Because I'm not up to it, least of all for a man like Putin's sake.

If you're up to it I cited a work which tackles the long development of Socialism, particularly it's midwife Christian heresy.

[Raginfridus]

And your assertion completely ignores the social Darwinism of the time period, which I argue is the true forerunner to progressivism. Also, you completely ignore the fact that the social gospel is in derogation of the Bible. It rejects God's moral law, whose foundation is property.

Social. Gospel. ...? Sounds like a name somebody invented out of frustration, because they couldn't honestly admit their religion was flawed somewhere. The Social Gospel might be heresy, but its still a Christian one. For what its worth, I have no idea what Putin means by "very similar" - I take it "Christianity" to him is only EO/RO - which is why I never used "very".

Also, if 19th cent. Papists were struggling internally with Progressivism and Socialism, that's interesting and didn't know that. I can see it in the 20th for sure.

[Sola_Fide]

Social. Gospel. ...? Sounds like a name somebody invented out of frustration, because they couldn't honestly admit their religion was flawed somewhere. The Social Gospel might be heresy, but its still a Christian one. For what its worth, I have no idea what Putin means by "very similar" - I take it "Christianity" to him is only EO/RO - which is why I never used "very".

A great book to put this all in perspective is C. Gregg Singer's A Theological Interpretation Of American History. It's still in my top 5 books I've ever read.

[Sola_Fide]

Also, Transcendentalism was the forerunner to progressivism in America, and that was 100 years before what we are talking about.

[Raginfridus]

You guys and your books... :P There's another for the list.

[Sola_Fide]

You guys and your books... :P There's another for the list.

You don't read?

[Sola_Fide]

Another great book about how the history of theology intersected with the political order is The One And The Many by Rousas Rushdoony.

[Raginfridus]

You don't read?

I mean another for the reading list. I do read some, not as much as I used to. I'm on call more often during winter, opposed to just normal hours, so my list is backed up more than usual. That's all.

[Sola_Fide]

I mean another for the reading list. I do read some, not as much as I used to. I'm on call more often during winter, opposed to just normal hours, so my list is backed up more than usual. That's all.

Oh gotcha.

[Raginfridus]

[Sola_Fide]

What is that?

[Raginfridus]

Like I said, the burning of Jan Hus.