Interesting (?) Post in OBOB

[Alexis OCA]

This is being posted in OBOB. I don't know if it even deserves a response:

"Russian Communism came from Christianity....


I have just finished reader a super book called "the origins of Russian Communism"

It really interestingly explains how the nihilistic materialistic communism is really a kind of heresy from Russian Orthodoxy.

It says that communism would not have been possible if it were not for the personality traits that Christianity installed in the adherents of communism (a lot of the adherents were former devout Christians)

Anyway, basically the book concludes that Communism is a religion and in fact is very similar in underlining philosophy to Russian Orthodoxy in the 19th century it just draws very different social implications.

The book is written by a Russian Orthodox and not anti-orthodoxy, it is just a very interesting book."

Any comments or refelections from those who might know better? I studied Early Russian History in graduate school and have never heard anything like this.

[Prawnik]

I have heard Orthodox Russian express similar theories, to the effect that Communism would have been grand if the Church had been allowed to play a leading role, similar to that under the Tsars, however Russian Communism owes more to Russian village norms than it does to Orthodoxy per se.

For instance, Russian villages owned land collectively, and every ten years, the land was divided among the families in that village, each adult male in a family living in that village entitled the family to one share of the village's land. You can see how this is not far from a collective farm system. In Ukraine, land was owned individually, and there was much more resistance to collectivization.

Another example is that labor contracts were traditionally collective in nature. If, for instance, the membership of TAW contracted with a shipowner named "Erwin" to haul a barge, contract would typically be between TAW and Erwin, not the individual members. Under such an agreement, the TAW members would each guarantee each other's performance, and payment would be made to TAW, which would be responsible for dividing it among the members. Again, this has a lot in common with a labor collective.

None of these examples really implicates Orthodoxy, if anything, they implicate the Old Belief and its idealized visions of Old Rus and a return to the pristine past. The Old Belief had more of an ideological impact on Tsarist-era Russian peasants than is commonly supposed, and it is worth noting that M. Suslov and other luminaries of Communist thought hailed from the Tobolsk region, a hotbed of schismaticism. Suslov himself was born to a an Old Believer family.

[ExOrienteLux]

Umm, wasn't Communism the brainchild of Karl Marx, a German Jew who eventually converted to some form of Christianity?

Or are they speaking specifically about Russian Communism?

Regardless, I'll neglect to say what I think about this, since it's Lent.

+IC XC NIKA+
Phillip,
Of all sinners, the greatest

[Prawnik]

I think the book is commenting on Communism in its Russian manifestation, as all serious attempts to construct socialism have sprung from the Russian experience.

That said, Marx (to my knowledge) never converted to anything except atheism. His forefathers may have converted to Christianity, I forget.

[Alexis OCA]

Thanks for those clarifications. Ill need to do some reading but it will be interesting to see how this plays out over there at OBOB. I'll just keep my mouth shut.

[gzt]

It's not very controversial to say that Marxism is a Christian heresy.

[Rilian]

Assuming this is the book by Berdyaev, I think it's fair to say for someone that was Orthodox, he held a number of unorthodox beliefs.

Regarding the thesis, certainly there were elements of the church as part of the broader fabric of society that made what happened possible. Overall to say that the movement is an offspring of the church or would not have been possible without it I think is totally mistaken.

Going back to the time of Peter the Great the church was extremely hostile to foreign influence and ideas. It strongly supported the idea of the Tsar as ruler and spiritual figure. Communism was a direct import from the West, popular among figures of the Intelligentsia. I'm sure you could go back further, but the best time to really begin to trace this is with the emancipation of the serfs under Alexander II. That's when you can look at writers and philosophical idealists as diverse as Belinsky, Chernyshevsky and Turgenev. They each in their turn represent the change - pro-western, anti-church, anti-establishment, socialist, etc. They viewed traditional Russian culture as hopelessly backwards and they argued vehemently against the state, the church and anybody who looked to the past such as Dostoevsky or Gogol.

What this gave rise to was a real movement, often called populism or narodnichestvo in the last quarter of the 19th century. That’s when the ideas of Marx and Engels gained a significant amount of influence. You can look at figures like Lavrov or Mikhailovsky to see the real foment of how Communism would be shaped. The principle of lichnost (the self), individual realization, critical rationalism and so on were key themes that were popular. None of these have anything to do with Orthodoxy or even traditional Russian values. They in fact stand in opposition to them.

The rest of the history we all know. Lenin and the Bolsheviks triumphed over Martov and the Mensheviks for control of the movement. The weak and ineffectual provisional government could not hold power after Nicholas II abdicated. The internally divided white armies could not defeat the Bolsheviks.

The idea that “(a lot of the adherents were former devout Christians)” I think is the one thing that can be shown to be quite false, and not a matter of interpretation. Membership in the party itself was never very large as it was. Lenin only wanted a true and committed elite group of professional revolutionaries, unlike Martov. Lenin did not come from a family of faith and he had nothing but contempt for the church. He did not and would not have trusted those from the church to assume leadership in the party. They were people who shared his background and ideals. Stalin, who attended a seminary school but was anti-Christian from a young age, was no different. In fact he was probably much worse given how he decimated the ranks of those who even shared his beliefs.

[xenia]

Edited. My post didn't make sense, not even to me. ^_^

[Xpycoctomos]

GregChant! Your faith icon! wow! cool! Sorry I didn't notice earlier. Are you slated for this Holy Saturday? (No rush... just curious since you have been attending for about 16/17 months if I remember correctly).

John

[Alexis OCA]

GregChant! Your faith icon! wow! cool! Sorry I didn't notice earlier. Are you slated for this Holy Saturday? (No rush... just curious since you have been attending for about 16/17 months if I remember correctly).

John

Thank you brother, but I recently returned after brief time out and I would like to give it one more year. I hope that this year may be a year of true conversion of heart and mind. I am lucky in that I have parish community that is very nice and a priest who is gentle yet persistent. Just the right combination for me. The icon change was necessary because this is where I feel I truly belong. A big step at age 45 but better late than never. I hope to be an official catechumen very soon. Keep me in your prayers.

Warmest regards,
Douglas

[Xpycoctomos]

I most certainly will Douglas.

[Vasya Davidovich]

I've always felt that capitalism required the individualistic thinking of the West to take hold. That, of course, along with wholesale apostasy from the Church.

On the other hand, communism required the conciliar thinking of the East to take hold. That along with wholesale apostasy from the Church. (Cuba is something of an anomaly. Mind you, so is the character of Fidel Castro in world communism.)

However, it seems a stretch to consider communism a Christian heresy. After all, it in its purest form (like capitalism) is atheistic and anti-God. Heresy, insofar as I understand heresy, still involves a worship of God, even if it is not the God we understand, recognize, and adore.

As I have said elsewhere, I have found communism immensely appealing. Why? Because in it's nascent form, it reminds one of the best features of the Church of the Book of Acts. Unfortunately, both communism and socialism are inherently fallible as they are human constructs - they are human philosophies that can be held independent of the Church.

[Rilian]

On the other hand, communism required the conciliar thinking of the East to take hold.

I can’t say that I agree with you there Vasya. Russian Communism was an ideal that was never realized, really never for even an instant. The Bolsheviks came to power through military victory and held on to it through a combination of coercion, violence and fear. One of the first things set up after the Revolution was the most one of the most successful and long lasting aspects of the state, namely the Cheka (the secret police). The Communist Party always remained a small group who governed in a highly centralized and authoritarian manner. They were not even true to Marxist economic thought, and experimented with quasi-capitalist schemes like the New Economic Program in the 20’s.

The Communist idealists like Bukharin were gradually worked out of power, and then massively swept away in the Great Terror. They died broken and disillusioned with what had taken place. Perhaps they dreamed of something like the sobornoy that was the ideal of the 19th century Slavophiles, but this sort of conciliarity simply never became part of the system. Perhaps the one thing close to it was the forced collectivization of agriculture in the 30’s, but that was of course a tragic disaster that led to millions of deaths.

Communism in Eastern Europe outside of Russia of course took hold for one reason alone really, and that was the presence of the Red Army.

[Vasya Davidovich]

I can’t say that I agree with you there Vasya. Russian Communism was an ideal that was never realized, really never for even an instant. The Bolsheviks came to power through military victory and held on to it through a combination of coercion, violence and fear. One of the first things set up after the Revolution was the most one of the most successful and long lasting aspects of the state, namely the Cheka (the secret police). The Communist Party always remained a small group who governed in a highly centralized and authoritarian manner. They were not even true to Marxist economic thought, and experimented with quasi-capitalist schemes like the New Economic Program in the 20’s.

The Communist idealists like Bukharin were gradually worked out of power, and then massively swept away in the Great Terror. They died broken and disillusioned with what had taken place. Perhaps they dreamed of something like the sobornoy that was the ideal of the 19th century Slavophiles, but this sort of conciliarity simply never became part of the system. Perhaps the one thing close to it was the forced collectivization of agriculture in the 30’s, but that was of course a tragic disaster that led to millions of deaths.

Communism in Eastern Europe outside of Russia of course took hold for one reason alone really, and that was the presence of the Red Army.
What I was trying to convey was the uniquely communistic or communal idealism that arose out of the East. Not that it ever was a reality, but that without naive idealists, communism could never have found a foothold.