ChaosAttractor, oya. Let the exposition begin.

Give it a religious angle, please, cos if it is taken out of this section I won't follow.

kweshiun 1:

what is the connection between the communism you speak of and the theories of Karl Marx.


I ask because you've made mention of Mao and USSR and it is a known historical fact that the communist revolutions in Russia and China where quite different from Marxist theorising.

Marx said that industrialisation will create an organised working class that will then take over the government of the societies.

it is a known fact that China and Russia were not industrialised at all. The working classes were made up of a massive peasant population. The industrialisation came after the revolution.

In other words communism was a political ideology that was forcibly imposed on a people rather than something that evolved naturally through historical processes as delineated by Marx.

Which leads to Kweshion 2:

Communist countries have had communist structures imposed on their societies. How does this tally with Anarchy so as to make the term Anarcho-communist not an oxymoron?

I am very impressed by Taoism, The chinese religion/philosophy.

The Tao Teh Ching suggests that forms arise naturally out of historical processes. I totally agree. In fact a made up term I use for myself is that I'm an Euarchist. Eu-archy.

Etymology[edit]
Ancient Greek εὖ ‎(eû, “well, good”)

Prefix[edit]
eu-

good, well
true, genuine

It is part of my world view that forms arise spontaneously as history chugs along, and this includes social and governmental forms. Then they naturally dissipate when their time passes.

To couch it in biblical terms:

1To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

2A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

3A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

4A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

6A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

7A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

8A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

At the appointed time things come into being.

It follows that Anarchy as a policy or a philosophy is, in my humble opinion, unnatural.

Where we find communism it only lasts for an appointed time and when that time passes it would be unnatural to continue to impose the communist regime.

The bible presents an history of an anarchic society in the book of Judges. This in my opinion is the best documentation we have of an anarchic society.

The people had no rulers and Judges would arise spontaneously to meet a particular situation as and when the situation arose.

if it was invasions by foreigners then a Military leader would arise to drive out the invaders.

However this state of anarchy did not hold and it was the people themselves who begged for a monarchy to be established so that they too could be like their neighbours.

chaosattractor:


Oh sorry I just saw the thread! On anarcho-communism right?

Hmmm...I don't know how I'll relate it to religion. Or you could just email me...

I don't really do private emails. I like to keep my correspondences here, if that's okay. I understand if you might not be in the mood for discussing this though.

I still believe there was never a true Marxist revolution and therefore no true communist state.

I would want to believe that the lack of strong institutions allowed for the Stalinist excesses. Similarly an Achilles Heel for anarchists' vision.

Kay17:
I still believe there was never a true Marxist revolution and therefore no true communist state.

I would want to believe that the lack of strong institutions allowed for the Stalinist excesses. Similarly an Achilles Heel for anarchists' vision.

For there to have been a true marxist revolution, there would have to first be massive industrialisation and an urban work force. These important prerequisites were missing in the states that ended up calling themselves communist. China was a rural economy and so was Russia.

A proper marxist revolution could only have occurred in a country like England or Germany or France. Industrialised nations. It didn't happen, partly, I suspect, because of socialism. Once the elites started throwing breadcrumbs at the working classes, the working classes were easily satisfied and were happy to not revolt. That is one opinion.

However, there is a reading of the conquest of Canaan in the bible that suggests a kind of Communist revolution.

This is derived from study of the ruins of Canaanite cities. Many of the ruins do not bear the marks of foreign invasion.

It is suggested that the Israelites were in fact indigenous canaanites who rose up against their ruling classes. The fall of Canaan was a society turning in against itself. Many of the idols in the ruins were systematically smashed. It was also a religious revolution.

So while they kept the worship of the head God of the canaanites, El, in his different forms from El Shaddai to El Elyon etc, they destroyed all the other canaanite deities. And they destroyed the monarchies.

The result was the Anarchic system that we find in the book of Judges. This lasted until Saul eventually managed to impose a monarchy on them again. However it failed as a dynasty and only eventually David's monarchy yielded a dynasty.

There are even signs of earlier attempts before Saul to impose a dynasty. Samuel tried to do so by passing power on to his sons but the people rejected his sons.

PastorAIO
Your analysis of the Communist revolution in my opinion seems to be from a Western capitalist perspective. With my little knowledge of both Revolution's, I believe they were both elitist, cooked up by the noble class. In fact, it was a revolution of the Nobility in the name of the people.

I've learnt something here though, that anarchy isn't necessarily lawlessness. Just a lack of leaders and judges. Does that mean that a country like Somalia after the deposing of their president and the subsequent division into clan territories (the system that existed precolonial) wasn't necessarily in anarchy, but just a different form of government.

My ideal society is one without taxes.

PastorAIO:
However, there is a reading of the conquest of Canaan in the bible that suggests a kind of Communist revolution.

This is derived from study of the ruins of Canaanite cities. Many of the ruins do not bear the marks of foreign invasion.

It is suggested that the Israelites were in fact indigenous canaanites who rose up against their ruling classes. The fall of Canaan was a society turning in against itself. Many of the idols in the ruins were systematically smashed. It was also a religious revolution.

So while they kept the worship of the head God of the canaanites, El, in his different forms from El Shaddai to El Elyon etc, they destroyed all the other canaanite deities. And they destroyed the monarchies.

The result was the Anarchic system that we find in the book of Judges. This lasted until Saul eventually managed to impose a monarchy on them again. However it failed as a dynasty and only eventually David's monarchy yielded a dynasty.

There are even signs of earlier attempts before Saul to impose a dynasty. Samuel tried to do so by passing power on to his sons but the people rejected his sons.

This observation may be due to the fact that the conquest of the promised land took quite a while. Jerusalem, for example, was conquered in the times of David. Hundreds of years after the fall of Jericho.

Muafrika2:

PastorAIO
Your analysis of the Communist revolution in my opinion seems to be from a Western capitalist perspective. With my little knowledge of both Revolution's, I believe they were both elitist, cooked up by the noble class. In fact, it was a revolution of the Nobility in the name of the people.

I've learnt something here though, that anarchy isn't necessarily lawlessness. Just a lack of leaders and judges. Does that mean that a country like Somalia after the deposing of their president and the subsequent division into clan territories (the system that existed precolonial) wasn't necessarily in anarchy, but just a different form of government.

My ideal society is one without taxes.

I never said that the communist revolutions (in Russia or China) were from the masses. Yes, it was imposed on the people by elites.


If there are no taxes would you be happy for there to be no bridges, no public utilities like electricity and water etc. I wonder if you live in Nigeria. If not, you ought to move back because that is a society where you hardly pay taxes and there are no public utilities.

Muafrika2:

This observation may be due to the fact that the conquest of the promised land took quite a while. Jerusalem, for example, was conquered in the times of David. Hundreds of years after the fall of Jericho.

What observation exactly? The lack of signs of foreign invasion? Yes, David had intimate knowledge of the city of Jerusalem, such as how to get into the city without going through the gates, but through the drainage. But the other conquests mentioned in Joshua suggests that an army attacked from outside the cities by force and there isn't much evidence of this in the ruins.

PastorAIO:

What observation exactly? The lack of signs of foreign invasion?

Yes,

I never said that the communist revolutions (in Russia or China) were from the masses. Yes, it was imposed on the people by elites.

Am including both the Agrarian and industrial revolution as similar impositions. Remember the medieval European system was in the form of aristocrats at the top, the landed Nobility and the peasantry (the masses) who were not even allowed to own land, at the base. The Industrial revolution just converted this peasantry into paid workers and gave them a little freedom. And called it modern civilization.

The Marxist ideology seems to have been a rebellion against the rise of the capitalism of Europe. The only difference beyween the two is that instead of the noble, landed class owning the multinationals, it's the government - which of course just does exactly what the capitalists are doing to the people -

If there are no taxes would you be happy for there to be no bridges, no public utilities like electricity and water etc. I wonder if you live in Nigeria. If not, you ought to move back because that is a society where you hardly pay taxes and there are no public utilities.

All our modern (and even preceding) kinds of government are based on usury of men and overindulgence of the elite. Since you asked that this discussion be from a religious perspective, we who are waiting for a new age of Christ's rule await for the same and believe that it is possible to govern without usury and oppression.

Let's take for example the precolonial African societies (with the exception of the societies that were kingdoms based in cities). The communities that preferred simplicity. The King's led with more ease and authority was not limited to an exclusive elite. The result is a community with less vices (adultery, prostitution, pedophilia, disobedience, rebellion, self seeking interests, stealing, coveting etc) And less taxes. We'd have more without taxes if the thieves of Africa's resources (by which the world's super powers are funded) were stopped.

Sorry for derailing your thread. I just have a problem with Western (modern) civilization as imposed on Africa.

I learnt anarchist communities existed during the Spanish Civil War.

You haven't derailed anything, I'm enjoying your contribution ojare.

Am including both the Agrarian and industrial revolution as similar impositions. Remember the medieval European system was in the form of aristocrats at the top, the landed Nobility and the peasantry (the masses) who were not even allowed to own land, at the base. The Industrial revolution just converted this peasantry into paid workers and gave them a little freedom. And called it modern civilization.

I think with the agrarian and industrial revolution matter you're missing a couple of things. These revolutions were not strictly imposed on the people deliberately from the upper classes but there were historical events that caused certain shifts in european societies.

1) The Black Death Epidemic. You were right that the peasants couldn't own the land and worked for the nobility. Furthermore under the feudal system they were serfs. A serf could not move from the land he was born with a permit. So if you were born on a farm in yorkshire then you could never ever leave yorkshire to say you want to go to Somerset. You were tied to one lord, the guy who owned the land you were born on.
This was okay as long as there was a big population all around.

After the Black Death struck it reduced the population in Europe, in some places up to 2 thirds or 3 quarters. Labour as a factor of production suddenly became very valuable therefore the peasants had more clout to negotiate. No noble in his right mind would say he was going to kill a serf that decided that he wanted to move to another county for better opportunity.

There were revolutions like the Peasants revolution in England 1381.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants%27_Revolt

2) The conflict between the Church and the State. Throughout Europes medieval history (and I think up till this day) there had been a tension between the Church and the Nobles. Military power versus Psychological power. I personally feel that the Church (deliberately or not) created a new class, the Bourgeoisie, to counter the power of the nobles. With the bourgeoisie rose the Banking system and the Merchant classes especially in Southern Europe, most especially in Italy. This is my own theorising. With the rise of Banking came the rise of Capitalism.
I believe it arose by historical accidents rather than someone imposing it on the people.

3) The industrial revolution itself arose out of the ingenuity of individuals. Like the guy spinning cotton in his cottage who was probably quite a lazy guy who found the work tedious and so he racked and racked his brain to think of an easier way to do his task and him came up with the basic ingenious idea that would become the modern Cotton mill. Suddenly Cotton could be milled in vast quantities and cheaply. The banks were there to lend him the capital and he built himself a manufactory for milling cotton.
He dude would become rich and his wealth would become a challenge for the Nobility whose source of income was not based on capital but on land. With time more and more people left the land to go and work in the factories and land got less important as a factor of production. The nobility lost out a lot during the industrial revolution and in fact a new class arose out of it. The bourgeoisie.

This shift was not visited on the people from top down. The New class itself emerged spontaneously quite separate from the ruling classes or the working classes.

The Marxist ideology seems to have been a rebellion against the rise of the capitalism of Europe. The only difference beyween the two is that instead of the noble, landed class owning the multinationals, it's the government - which of course just does exactly what the capitalists are doing to the people -

I agree that Marx seemed to be reacting to the rise of the bourgeoisie. However the Bourgeoisie are not the Nobility. By this time the nobility are starting to lose their influence in politics. The Nobility/landed classes had nothing to do with the Industries that were emerging. They were completely caught off guard by the shift in political and economic power.
According to Marx, once the Workers had been gathered together in the cities, working in the factories, they would bond together and unite to overthrow the bourgeoisie. And he also said that this movement would be worldwide. This is where he was so totally wrong and he was wrong for so many reasons.

1) Different parts of the world were at different stages of industrial development. England was the most developed country industrially but nothing happened here. However Russia which was the most backward country industrially was were the bolshevik revolution occurred. So obviously there were no massed workers in the factories overthrowing their bourgeoisie masters. Russia was still a SERFDOM!!! This is like 700 years after the rest of europe had thrown off serfdom. Most Russians had never left the farm on which they were born, so the revolution was obviously a totally fake communist revolution.

It was a similar situation in China. Most of the population were peasants not city dwellers in factories.

The reason that the populations of Russia and China were oppressed for so long was because Stalin in Russia, and later Mao in China, realised that they had to get industrialised if they were going to keep up with the rest of the world. You see, the industrialisation came after the revolution and not before. The complete diametric opposite of what Marx predicted. This forced industrialisation by forcing the people off the land and into factories cause massive famines and food shortages and many people died. Those that protested were dealt with harshly.

3) and most importantly Marx, who I actually think was quite stupid, totally ignored culture. And at the centre of culture is Religion. There is no way workers all around the world are going to unite together and forget their cultural differences. And there is no way that people are just going to give up on religion like that. Even in Russia till today the Orthodox church is a powerful political entity. People would rather be oppressed within their own culture than be free under a foreign culture.
That's why i think that equally stupid are those people that say they want to liberate muslim women from wearing burkhas. I don't know if any muslim woman came to beg them for liberation. The thing that they've been wearing for generations and is a matter of cultural and religious pride for them.

Muafrika2:

Yes,



Am including both the Agrarian and industrial revolution as similar impositions. Remember the medieval European system was in the form of aristocrats at the top, the landed Nobility and the peasantry (the masses) who were not even allowed to own land, at the base. The Industrial revolution just converted this peasantry into paid workers and gave them a little freedom. And called it modern civilization.

The Marxist ideology seems to have been a rebellion against the rise of the capitalism of Europe. The only difference beyween the two is that instead of the noble, landed class owning the multinationals, it's the government - which of course just does exactly what the capitalists are doing to the people -




All our modern (and even preceding) kinds of government are based on usury of men and overindulgence of the elite. Since you asked that this discussion be from a religious perspective, we who are waiting for a new age of Christ's rule await for the same and believe that it is possible to govern without usury and oppression.

Let's take for example the precolonial African societies (with the exception of the societies that were kingdoms based in cities). The communities that preferred simplicity. The King's led with more ease and authority was not limited to an exclusive elite. The result is a community with less vices (adultery, prostitution, pedophilia, disobedience, rebellion, self seeking interests, stealing, coveting etc) And less taxes. We'd have more without taxes if the thieves of Africa's resources (by which the world's super powers are funded) were stopped.

Sorry for derailing your thread. I just have a problem with Western (modern) civilization as imposed on Africa.

All our modern (and even preceding) kinds of government are based on usury of men and overindulgence of the elite. Since you asked that this discussion be from a religious perspective, we who are waiting for a new age of Christ's rule await for the same and believe that it is possible to govern without usury and oppression.

What do you mean by usury here?

For me, any force that compels one to act contrary to one's innate inclination is an oppressive force. I don't think that we have to wait till some day of advent before that release from oppression can occur. In other words the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, Right here and Right now.

Let's take for example the precolonial African societies (with the exception of the societies that were kingdoms based in cities). The communities that preferred simplicity. The King's led with more ease and authority was not limited to an exclusive elite. The result is a community with less vices (adultery, prostitution, pedophilia, disobedience, rebellion, self seeking interests, stealing, coveting etc) And less taxes. We'd have more without taxes if the thieves of Africa's resources (by which the world's super powers are funded) were stopped.

Sorry for derailing your thread. I just have a problem with Western (modern) civilization as imposed on Africa.

Can you furnish us with an example of one of such african societies? As much as I love history the problem that I have with African history is that it is not as documented as I would like. So there is not much to study.

Again, this is not derailing, and even if it is it is a sweet derailment.

But ChaosAttractor, where are you? Na you start this wahala o.

Kay17:
I learnt anarchist communities existed during the Spanish Civil War.

Yep.

And now I think of it that means that the book of Judges is not the best documentation of Anarchic societies, although it is the longest lasting anarchic society.

A Marxist revolution is ever more possible in our times given our high level of education and postmodern attitudes to overthrow traditional values. We are likely to connect with other cultures better than our ancestors and less tied to ours.

I see what you mean by Marxist revolution being forced as opposed to developing as a natural phenomenon. He even tried to kill religion in fear of having competing ideologies. I would Equate that To the forced democratization(and modernization) of Africa (which before was diverse in religion and culture) and Arab muslim territories, and I think Kay17 underestimates the cultural identity of Modern Africa. It is the most important reason why modern Africa has institutions, laws, ideals and policies that are only good on paper. We already are living out a forced revolution.

PastorAIO:

What do you mean by usury here?
For me, any force that compels one to act contrary to one's innate inclination is an oppressive force. I don't think that we have to wait till some day of advent before that release from oppression can occur. In other words the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, Right here and Right now.

The Kingdom of God is here indeed. But we still have ruthless masters in charge.

I'll demonstrate usury by dissecting our systems now. A recent survey by oxfarm put half of the world's wealth in the hands of 68 people. These are the tip of the pyramid. They are part the most elite 1% of the 1%.

But how do they make their money?

- They own the thieving and covert multinationals operating in Agriculture, Petroleum industries, pharmaceuticals, etc The Monsanto and Cargills of the world. These companies are obsessed with control of the masses more than with profits.

-The above entities are known to bulldoze their way through economic policies of the countries they are operating in. The major Agricultural entities have already modified (regardless of its harmful effects) and patented all useful seeds so that independent farmers all over the world have become dependent on a few individual companies for their seed, fertiliser and market.

- We know most of the deceases many faces today stems from food. Our current ,system, through food industry is more controlling of our day to day lives than any preceding ones.

It is more oppressive(especially to Africans) because because landed, self sustaining Africans are being forced out of their land to make way for multinational mining or farming entities in the name of development. What development? They are loosing their land and most assured daily bread for underpaid, casual labour in mines, and flower farms? This is oppression. Am reminded of a German flower farm owner who was asked (on dw) why he underpaid his African farm hands. He replied that the people had no enough intelligence to use money. They would just waste it

Let me not start on transfer of important jobs from developing countries to the first world by taking out raw materials from Africa, South America, etc, tax evasion and profit transfer by these entities.

You are right about the meaning of oppression. Our societies oppression is subtle. We are born with no choice but to fan the engines of our industrial world. All schooling, philosophy, ideology and government is working for the interests of 1% of the 1%. Do we have a choice? And this is why I love the indigenous African system. Some Africans do. Some self sustaining nomadic, fishing or subsistence farming community that will not notice when the local currency is on a free fall against the dominating dollar.

I have touched on economic oppression of the masses by the elite capitalists. We also are under political oppression. Worldwide, the elite 5
that called themselves the allied powers who made themselves the United Nations for control of the rest. Then the division into the first and third world's, the wealth flowing out of the third world to oil and supply the industries of the first world before reselling their wares to us. These are in pursuit of policies of UN entities like the WTO. Then our looting, bandit governments which add to our pain with heavy taxation.

It is no secret that the published independence of the third world was just a formality. The oppressors remain the owners of the wealth that they took from the oppressed populations.

Can you furnish us with an example of one of such african societies? As much as I love history the problem that I have with African history is that it is not as documented as I would like. So there is not much to study.

Many of these survived till now. Their documentation is mostly in school books. But you can read "Facing Mount Kenya" by Mzee Jomo Kenyatta which elaborates the Kikuyu traditional systems.

My community was one of those. We had simple living systems, with afew superstitious beliefs about housing, and building materials. All clans had a time set for circumcision of an age group (about 5-8 years). This age group would go on to be groomed as a future council of elders, which was a right for all males, taking turns according to their groups.

Again, this is not derailing, and even if it is it is a sweet derailment..

PastorAIO:
However, there is a reading of the conquest of Canaan in the bible that suggests a kind of Communist revolution.

This is derived from study of the ruins of Canaanite cities. Many of the ruins do not bear the marks of foreign invasion.

It is suggested that the Israelites were in fact indigenous canaanites who rose up against their ruling classes. The fall of Canaan was a society turning in against itself. Many of the idols in the ruins were systematically smashed. It was also a religious revolution.

So while they kept the worship of the head God of the canaanites, El, in his different forms from El Shaddai to El Elyon etc, they destroyed all the other canaanite deities. And they destroyed the monarchies.

The result was the Anarchic system that we find in the book of Judges. This lasted until Saul eventually managed to impose a monarchy on them again. However it failed as a dynasty and only eventually David's monarchy yielded a dynasty.

There are even signs of earlier attempts before Saul to impose a dynasty. Samuel tried to do so by passing power on to his sons but the people rejected his sons.

some people believe that the Israelites were economic migrants who simply outnumbered the indigenous Canaanites with time due to their high birth rate. It's usually a norm for a usually aggressive normadic tribe (the Isrealites) to covet fertile land developed and owned by a dormant tribe, e.g the Fulani's in Nigeria.