You don’t have to be a Marxist to be influenced by Marxian thought. What percentage of the population still adheres to the exploitation theory of interest? And how many are able to actually identify the source of their confusion? Those who have never heard of Marx will say, with absolute certainty, that businessmen exploit their workers for profit. Marx’s theories, to this day, are omnipresent. He is probably the most influential economics of all-times.
In Germany, the government collects taxes for the church. Hitler introduced it and it was conveniently never gotten rid of.
Well I got a sort of strongly leftist felling while reading his otherwise great works, but that is beside the point. I myself know many, many atheist who could hardly be further form being Marxists.
And in general, I think Molineux hits it when he portrays organized religion and statism as being what microcosmic would call “close substitution goods”. If you have more of one, you can get rid of the other. Hence the strange dichotomy we witness increasingly nowadays: you have atheist or agnostic leftists and libertarian Christian fundamentalists.
Of course the whole argument includes only those who need such mental constructs at all. Those who don’t, have the luxury of avoiding both. Those who are desperate, need both.
Luxury is a good word. Atheism has no restrictions. You can basically believe whatever you if you accept that the universe created itself, or is part of some random infinite regression. Leftist atheists are not bound by discursive reasoning, and don’t find internal contradictions problematic.
Accepting both is untenable in my opinion. If you believe in a God, that granted you free will and indubitable rights, you cannot believe that any man is sovereign over you or your property. The blind leading the blind type of thing. But, of course, protestants hold a purely deterministic position which rejects free-will. Thus, the protestant position can logically defend (if you accept its premises) certain institutional arrangements which can “guide you” (giving the state authority and legitimacy).
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
I’m not convinced. The Israelites demanded a king, and God (through Samuel) warned them about the evil that would follow. Israel had no state prior to this. More interestingly, God recognized this demand for a State as a rejection of him. (Is this not reason enough to demonstrate that anarchism is the Christian position?)
Agreed. God is the only final authority that a Christian needs.
Maybe I was a little bit strong in saying that it is a central message, but I will maintain that it is a major one. Read chapter 9 of the Westminster confession. I understand that “free will” as we commonly understand it isn’t taught in scripture. I agree with chapter 3 of the Westminster confession; nobody is free from the decrees of God. In discussing “free will” in chapter 9, the freedom attributed to humans is only with respect to nature (i.e., our actions are not determined by the things in nature). I would argue that in view of this sort of freedom, political freedom should follow, and anarchism should follow from that. (I refer to the Westminster confession somewhat authoritatively, because I think it is the most accurate summary of scripture ever written.)
But shouldn’t a Christian, having the advantage of God’s word, know better? I would like to think so. Such is not necessarily the case, though.
It seems like it’s more than a coincidence that an angel with a flaming sword was introduced to the world immediately after sin was. Why weren’t there angles with swords before the fall? Answer: force wasn’t necessary to adjudicate disputes. As far was we can tell, there were no disputes. After the fall, force becomes necessary. This is a devastating punishment. This force has traditionally taken the form of a State, but I (as an anarchist) would argue that it does not have to.
Read John Robbins. He is unfortunately not an Anarchist, but he is an austro-libertarian who derives his position from scripture. I am indebted to John Robbins for getting me interested in the Austrian school. Start here: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=127
Diagoras of 5th century BCE… you marxist! Foooor shammmmmeeee [^o)]
- ^ a b “Worldwide Adherents of All Religions by Six Continental Areas, Mid-2005”. Encyclopædia Britannica. 2005. http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9432620. Retrieved 2007-04-15.
- 2.3% Atheists: Persons professing atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion, including the militantly antireligious (opposed to all religion).
- 11.9% Nonreligious: Persons professing no religion, nonbelievers, agnostics, freethinkers, uninterested, or dereligionized secularists indifferent to all religion but not militantly so.
Yeah, you give him way to much credit.
Three cheers here!
What does this have to do with anything? The LTV predates classical economics, but it was the classical school that made it the center of all economic thought (until the marginalist revolution).
This doesn’t answer my question. Also, do you have the statistics for modern industrialized economies/societies?
Ridiculous. No one serious would ever deny this assertion. 3/4ths of the world implemented the Marxian economic system, up until fairly recently, and the mainstream is heavily influenced by Marxian political economy, which is why they were so quick to accept already refuted under-consumption doctrines (overproduction). The leader of the IMF/BIS and other international economic institutions are dominated by post Keynesian/neo Marxist economists. Never mind the dominance of historical materialism in philosophy classes around the world. Keynes, Smith, and Marx are the most influential economists of all times.
Tenants of communism:
- Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
- Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
-
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
-
Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
-
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
This has not been the inference that Protestants have typically drawn from their determinism. Their position, as far as I can tell, is that history has been planned out by God, but this plan is a part of God’s secret will. An attempt to construct political institutions based on inaccessible information is obviously impossible. The protestant response to this realization has been much more laissez-fair then their Catholic counterparts. (“We don’t know what God’s plan, so we’ll just do what we’re supposed to do and leave other people alone.” Not every protestant shared this view, obviously. John Calvin and Martin Luther did.) The Catholics, who believed in total free will, were more prone to Statism and authoritarianism because they thought that their actions were determinative of other people’s salvation and well-being.
Incorrect. It is true that later protestants, such as Adam Smith and the like, were warm to the idea of capitalism and freedom. But when you compare their positions to the earlier pre-Smithian economists (who were catholic) you realize that Smith was a big step towards statism. He supported regulation, taxation, fiat money, ect.
Catholic thomism and Scholasticism revived the Aristotelian tradition; they didn’t believe that they “knew god’s plan,” but rather that they could logically deduce truth from natural law. That is, they rejected the protestant position that man is to stupid to figure out and understand his environment. Furthermore, the later scholastics, such as Juan de Mariana, were the first libertarians, though some claim that Lao Tzu is the first real libertarian. He (Mariana) deduced that kings who tax without consent of the people, or debase the currency, should be executed (also attacked divine right nonsense).
I’m familiar with Rothbard’s arguments. He is right, as far as it goes, but he is ignoring the fact that the percentage of Catholics who adopted libertarian views is quite small compared to those who adopted authoritarian views. I would bet money that the percentage of libertarian(ish) protestants was higher than libertarian(ish) Catholics. I am unaware of any existing empirical data to prove or disprove this, if you know of any, let me know. I suppose I could cite the Weber thesis, but I know what Rothbard thinks of this.
If I may intrude, I find both your arguments appealing. What that means is that both Protestants and Catholics could be persuaded into libertarian thinking, as well as to authoritarian thinking. That they do or do not is, I believe, dependent on other considerations.
This may or may not be true. Either way, it has nothing to do with the implications and philosophical doctrines of catholic thomism and scholasticism. There are many “Christians” today who support theft (taxation), murder (war), and who bear false witnesses against their neighbors.
Agreed.
What is this bearing of false witness in other words?
That’s true. I just think it’s something to look into to. I still find the Catholic argument for authoritarianism more convincing than the Protestantism argument for authoritarianism, though. Natural Law is ill-defined; it would be easy for someone to define it in such a way that supported Statism. Scripture, however, cannot be so easily molded to fit one’s political views.
x2
NPR.
Wrong.
Marxism is perfectly religious.
And:
Claiming that the pre-state market society—anarchism–is chaos is thus nothing but a very bad attempt by statists to make the state look good. The real truth is so far from this created statist “truth” that it would be laughable if so many weren’t blinded by the powers of the state and therefore willing to accept its propaganda and lies.
Libertarians claim to see through this “veil of ignorance” the state has carefully set up between people and the truth, and they seek to tell the world. But they have a hard time telling people what they don’t believe they want to hear. It isn’t that people have accepted the state’s point of view, they have adopted it and believe in it like it was a religion. The state is god, and its gospel is brought to the masses through the cunningly devised systems of democracy and public schooling.
-Per Bylund
Were Adam and Eve NOT given the choice whom to serve - God or themselves?
Were the Christian groups and the inherent accountability which you claim existed voluntary or involuntary?
The point I’m making, and that you’re missing - is that just because atheism has increased(?) in no way does it mean that the source is marxist.
There are other sources… and as correctly pointed out by Neilso - marxism is a religion in of itself, so your point is erroneous.
Karl Marx as Religious Eschatologist - MNR
Furthermore; it’s the classical liberals we have to thank… not the marxists.
"The object of the classical liberals was to bring about individual liberty in all of its interrelated aspects. In the economy, taxes were to be drastically reduced, controls and regulations eliminated, and human energy, enterprise, and markets set free to create and produce in exchanges that would benefit everyone and the mass of consumers. Entrepreneurs were to be free at last to compete, to develop, to create. The shackles of control were to be lifted from land, labor, and capital alike. Personal freedom and civil liberty were to be guaranteed against the depredations and tyranny of the king or his minions. Religion, the source of bloody wars for centuries when sects were battling for control of the State, was to be set free from State imposition or interference, so that all religions — or nonreligions — could coexist in peace. Peace, too, was the foreign policy credo of the new classical liberals; the age-old regime of imperial and State aggrandizement for power and pelf was to be replaced by a foreign policy of peace and free trade with all nations. And since war was seen as engendered by standing armies and navies, by military power always seeking expansion, these military establishments were to be replaced by voluntary local militia, by citizen-civilians who would only wish to fight in defense of their own particular homes and neighborhoods.
Thus, the well-known theme of “separation of Church and State” was but one of many interrelated motifs that could be summed up as “separation of the economy from the State,” “separation of speech and press from the State,” “separation of land from the State,” “separation of war and military affairs from the State,” indeed, the separation of the State from virtually everything."
That’s right, but it addresses the principle - far more important, since your question was basically a red herring.
Not ridiculous at all. Individuals with power, attempt to increase it - in all areas of life, they are parasites and want a bigger piece of the pie. What is a natural scenario - the growth of government everywhere, you attribute all to Marx? HAHAH…!! Get a grip.