What Did Rothbard Have Against the Anabaptists?

Miscellaneous History
1

Rothbard in his “An Austrian Perspective on the Histroy of Economic Thought, vol. 1, Economic Thought Before Adam Smith,” he states in “Messianic Communism in the Protestant Reformation” sees the anabaptists of Munster as a sort of proto-communist entity, much as communist historians do. While Rothbard admits that most anabaptists were peaceable he tends to use the word anabaptist as if it only ment the followers of Thomas Munster, which is untrue and unfair. The Brethren, Hutterites, and Mennonites during the whole sordid affair of religio-political tension of hte 16th century did not kill anyone for his fatih. No Lutheran or Catholic martryrs at the hands of the Brethren, though many brethren died at the hands of the Lutherans and Catholics.

Rothbard also seems to be confused theology for when he states that the anabaptists saw election as a mystical process that was highly subjective, based on a “baptism of the Holy Spirit” he is wrong for the Brethren, Mennonites and Hutterites. They believed in a visibile witness of faith as seen in the bearing of goods fruits and a transformed life. I cannot speak for Munster, but I am not sure if he is correct their either.

While certainly the rule of Thomas Munster was deplorable it is also deplorable to paint all other anabaptist with the same brush as Munster, intentional or not. When he gets to theological matters Rothbard gets sloppy. This is seen in his claiming the peaceful anabaptists were anarcho-communists, I mean we are not talking about Noam Chomsky here! Communism is compulsory equality of goods; whereas Christian community of goods is stricktly voluntary. I mean does Rothbard think Peter and Paul were communists? Look at Acts 2:44-45. Furthermore their is no labor theory of value, materialist dialectic or militant athiesm. Also a community of goods as standard in the ancient church. In this work Rothbard barely touches on early christianity since it, is for his purposes, economically uninteresting, but he does not call Tertullian or Clement of Alexandria a communist.

One would think that Rothbard would have been at least ambivolent, if not favorable, toward the anabaptists since of all the factions in the reformation pioneered freemdom of concionsence, something I believe a libertarian would hold dear; generally they were the least coercive of all Christians.

Also Rothbard is making a mountain out of a mole hill, while Thomas Munster victims probably numbered only in the hundreds, maybe even thousands (unlikely since Munster was a city of only 10,000) the Lutherans in Germany deruing the peasants war killed tens of thousands. The Papists and Reformers shed rivers of blood in the 16th century and yet Munster is seen as the worst out break of Christian violence in centuries? Did Rothbard forget the Crusades? I mean lets have some proportion Munster was bad, but the Lutheran princes killed more people adn the Papists killed even more on Crusades.

Finally the anabaptist are a pacifist in belief and have been for nearly five hundered years. Given that Thomas Munster and his “millenial kingdom” endured for roughly five years, why does Rothbard use the term anapabtist to refer almost exclusivily to this violent sect, that was never repeated in the movements history, whereas the excesses of Rome and the Reformers took many more centuries to curb? I mean Rothbard does not lampoon the Roman Church for approximatlly four centuries of Crusading furver.

In short what does Rothbard have against the Anabaptists?

2

I have heard this point be made before but never did hear an answer. I’m not sure if you should call it sloppy for a historian to negatively lump a group under same heading, it make me wonder why previous historians would place such a diversified group under the same heading. Anyway, its a good question. If you do find an answer elsewhere please post it here

3

Interesting post. It sparked my interest.

But isn’t “Papist” a naughty word to use?

4

Yes, I wondered the same thing when I recently listened to the audiobook. I note that Rothbard also makes plenty of false generalizations about Calvinists and Presbyterians too.

5

Rothbard has made false accusations about Adam Smith as well.

6

“I note that Rothbard also makes plenty of false generalizations about Calvinists and Presbyterians too.”

What accusations in particular?

7

“Rothbard has made false accusations about Adam Smith as well.”

Can you give me some particular accusations?

8

http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2006/06/old-news-friedman-contra-rothbard.html

9

Interesting post Turin.

The problem is that while the Anabaptist movement itself is very complex (and studying it in depth could well take up a whole lifetime), the Munster episode is by far the best known. It also left an indelible mark on the name “anabaptist” itself, becoming synonimous with the most extreme form of “communistical” Christianity. While the Amish, the Brethren in Christ and the Mennonites are all technically speaking Anabaptists, nobody applies the term to them mostly out of respect. That’s a mark of how the term is still percieved as a negative title to this day. In recent years (mostly after Rothbard’s death) an attempt has been made by modern storiography to differentiate between “pacifist” Anabaptists (like the Mennonite) and “radical” Anabaptists (like the Batenburgers). Outside of scholarly circles this attempt is little known and will likely fail to make an impression.

Rothbard most likely fell prey to the dominating view, namely that the Anabaptist are synonimous with the “radical” sects.

10

“Yes, I wondered the same thing when I recently listened to the audiobook. I note that Rothbard also makes plenty of false generalizations about Calvinists and Presbyterians too.”

Rothbard seemed to have a grudge with Weber on the issue of protestant ethics and capitalism.

So, to in his sake for revisionism, he made some lame generealizations about protestants, trying to disprove the relation between protestant ethics and capitalism. But there is a very important different between the catholic and protestant doctrine when it comes to freedom, the protestant doctrine accept that any man can leave a certain cult and fund one of his own. So, even a certain protestant church condemns usury, it probably won’t start a crusade to destroy churchs that are ok about it.

And also on the issue of usury, protestants were usually more tolerant towards jews than catholics were.

11

“The problem is that while the Anabaptist movement itself is very complex (and studying it in depth could well take up a whole lifetime), the Munster episode is by far the best known. It also left an indelible mark on the name “anabaptist” itself, becoming synonimous with the most extreme form of “communistical” Christianity. While the Amish, the Brethren in Christ and the Mennonites are all technically speaking Anabaptists, nobody applies the term to them mostly out of respect. That’s a mark of how the term is still percieved as a negative title to this day. In recent years (mostly after Rothbard’s death) an attempt has been made by modern storiography to differentiate between “pacifist” Anabaptists (like the Mennonite) and “radical” Anabaptists (like the Batenburgers). Outside of scholarly circles this attempt is little known and will likely fail to make an impression.”

You response brings up an important point the term “anabaptist” is unhelpful. I mean it just means rebaptizer and in that case Southern Baptists are anabaptists, but that streaches the word to breaking point.

This brings me to my second point is Rothbard should have been consistant with his own methodology. We find in “The Death Wish of Anarcho-Communism” this statement: “. It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a “dismal science.” But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”

I agree but it could just as easily be restated as this "It is no crime to be ignorant of theology and church history, which is after all, a specialized discpline. But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on theologial and church historical subjects while remaning in this state of igorance. Is this really to much to ask for?

12

“The problem is that while the Anabaptist movement itself is very complex (and studying it in depth could well take up a whole lifetime), the Munster episode is by far the best known. It also left an indelible mark on the name “anabaptist” itself, becoming synonimous with the most extreme form of “communistical” Christianity. While the Amish, the Brethren in Christ and the Mennonites are all technically speaking Anabaptists, nobody applies the term to them mostly out of respect. That’s a mark of how the term is still percieved as a negative title to this day. In recent years (mostly after Rothbard’s death) an attempt has been made by modern storiography to differentiate between “pacifist” Anabaptists (like the Mennonite) and “radical” Anabaptists (like the Batenburgers). Outside of scholarly circles this attempt is little known and will likely fail to make an impression.”

You raise a good point that the word Anabaptist is unhelpful It just means rebaptizer and that would include Southern Baptists as well which would strain the word to breaking point.

In “The Death Wish of Anarcho-Communists” Rothbard writes: . It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a “dismal science.” But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

I would argue that it could also be written this way: It is no crime to be ignorant of theology and church history, which is, after all, a specialized discipline. But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on theological and church historical subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance. Is it to much to ask that Rothbard should have been at least consistent with his own methodology?

13

‘Rothbard in his “An Austrian Perspective on the Histroy of Economic Thought, vol. 1, Economic Thought Before Adam Smith,” he states in “Messianic Communism in the Protestant Reformation” sees the anabaptists of Munster as a sort of proto-communist entity, much as communist historians do. While Rothbard admits that most anabaptists were peaceable he tends to use the word anabaptist as if it only ment the followers of Thomas Munster, which is untrue and unfair. The Brethren, Hutterites, and Mennonites during the whole sordid affair of religio-political tension of hte 16th century did not kill anyone for his fatih. No Lutheran or Catholic martryrs at the hands of the Brethren, though many brethren died at the hands of the Lutherans and Catholics.’

Actually you misread the work.

‘Most Anabaptists, like the Mennonites or Amish, became virtual anarchists. They tried to separate themselves as much as possible from a necessarily sinful state and society, and engaged in non-violent resistance to the state’s decrees.’ pg 146

‘The passive wing of Anabaptists were voluntary anarcho-communists, who wished to live peacefully by themselves; but Muntzer adopted the Storch vision of blood and coercion.’ pg 147

after this point is talking exclusively about Muntzer.

'This is seen in his claiming the peaceful anabaptists were anarcho-communists, I mean we are not talking about Noam Chomsky here! Communism is compulsory equality of goods; ’

And you seem to be fuzzy on the details of communism. Communism can be voluntary, history just shows that it usually isn’t.

‘Furthermore their is no labor theory of value, materialist dialectic or militant athiesm.’

Socialism existed long before Marx. Atheism doesn’t become a factor until around the 18th century.

'Also Rothbard is making a mountain out of a mole hill, while Thomas Munster victims probably numbered only in the hundreds, maybe even thousands (unlikely since Munster was a city of only 10,000) the Lutherans in Germany deruing the peasants war killed tens of thousands. ’

Pointing out early examples of the inability of Communism to bring freedom and equality isn’t ‘making a mountain out of a mole hill’. It is the argument effectively started by and continued by the Austrian school against command based economies.

'The Papists and Reformers shed rivers of blood in the 16th century and yet Munster is seen as the worst out break of Christian violence in centuries? Did Rothbard forget the Crusades? I mean lets have some proportion Munster was bad, but the Lutheran princes killed more people adn the Papists killed even more on Crusades. ’

And what does this have to do with the progression of economic thought? If you want a book outlining the violence of religion, why are you looking at a economic history book that has philosophical implications concerning certain economic outlooks?

‘Given that Thomas Munster and his “millenial kingdom” endured for roughly five years, why does Rothbard use the term anapabtist to refer almost exclusivily to this violent sect, that was never repeated in the movements history, whereas the excesses of Rome and the Reformers took many more centuries to curb? I mean Rothbard does not lampoon the Roman Church for approximatlly four centuries of Crusading furver.’

Well first it isn’t just Muntzer that Rothard talks about but a great deal of millennialist communist sects. The Anabaptist communist sect is continued after Muntzer with Matthys and Bockelson and their control of Munster.

‘In short what does Rothbard have against the Anabaptists?’

The ones he has a problem with are the coercive communists. If you are a libertarian, you essentially should have some philosophical problem with them because of the methods they employed against others.

14

The Anabaptists displayed strong egalitarian leanings. They were a step along the road from Orthodoxy to radically equality social gospel liberal Christianity we have today; both in religious and secular forms.

I don’t know if this is what Rothbard had against them, but it’s what I have against them.