Why isn't Marxism Judeo-Christian?

[Aethel]

I had this discussion in other threads, but wanted to create a whole separate thread for it.

When I was more religious, I would listen to one figure's lectures - Father Seraphim Rose. A Russian Orthodox priest, nevertheless had some very interesting philosophical arguments and perspectives. One thing he argued was that Communism / Marxism was nothing more than the heresy of Chiliasm / Millenialism, but cloaked in secular academic language and lacking Christ. He claimed that Satan and the demons often just rehash old heresies and dress it up in new clothes.

Chiliasm, if you don't know, is the heresy which states that Christ will reign here on earth for 1000 years when he comes back via Revelation 20:4-6. The Catholic Church (as well as the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches) anathematize this as heretical, claiming that the "1000 years" in the Book of Revelation refers to the spiritual reign of the Church now, with 1000 years being a broad, indeterminate number to refer to a long time.

Why is it Chiliastic? Because it's narrative follows a Judeo-Christian, Chiliastic narrative.

But here's my point. Doesn't this just mean that Marxism is ultimately just a product, a logical derivative, of Judeo-Christian thought?

The narratives between Christianity and Marxism are very similar:

1. There was a primordial, paradisal time where there was no hierarchical differences between men and women (the Jewish Kabbalists take it one step further and claim Primordial Adam was a Hermaphrodite, and God's separation of Adam's Rib was a metaphor for the female gender contained within Adam) and no private property, a perfect utopia of pure bliss (Read "A People's History of the World" where Marxist author Chris Harman idealizes Pre-Agricultural Communal Organization as more harmonious and one with nature; he almost portrays these villages in an Edenic light)
2. But then, through knowledge, we evolved into our current hierarchical agricultural civilizations, which is inherently evil / fallen due, in part, to the gross hierarchical inequalities.
3. The people who run these systems are run by Satan / are the devil.
4. A Gospel shall spread which shall "spiritually fight" against the evil, corrupt, gross hierarchical systems (Marxist doctrine / the Gospel), to spread the spiritual truth about how evil the world is and to proclaim a return to the divine paradise
5. A Great Revolution shall come (either Christ or the Proletariat revolution) establishing a Kingdom of God on earth which shall purge away the inequal system and create a utopia here on earth where all is equal, signifying a return to that paradisal location or a dialectical union of the pre-fallen and post-fallen world.

And you'll notice that there are great similarities in Marxism's behavior to the Church's behavior when it started to spread. The Church had no problem burning down all the pagan temples and centers of literacy / knowledge that was deemed hostile to itself. It created Saints who are only Saints because they promoted the system; whose bodies were venerated. The Church created ceremonies celebrating these Saints. And the Church itself was seriously concerned with the purity of it's own doctrine and executed "corruptors" of it, villifying them as demonic enemies / corruptors of the civilization (Arius, for example). That's not to mention, by the way, the Church in the Book of Acts shared property in common.

But look at the Soviet Union and Marxism! They did the same thing. They wanted to burn down all Churches, museums, and historical areas that espoused an ideology hostile to itself. The Marxists replaced the gods / Saints of the past with Marxist Saints like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. People would visit the Tomb of Lenin and venerate his relics. The Marxist States created ceremonies commemorating these figures. And the Marxist apparatus was very concerned with "heretical" views of Marx, purging people like Trotsky (who became a villified enemy of the State).

We had a minor discussion on this elsewhere, but why isn't Marxism seen as a product of Christianity?

You could say "Marxism is Jewish". Marx was ethnically Jewish. However, the Jews are chiliastic too, and Christianity itself comes from 2nd Temple Judaism (perhaps not Talmudic Judaism, but still Judaism; the Old Testament was a Jewish text for Jews). And Marx himself, while ethnically Jewish, had parents who were Protestant Christians. Additionally, the Soviet Union heavily persecuted the religious, Orthodox Jews as well. And this doesn't defeat my point of Marxism being "Judeo"-Christian. It still follows the Messianic narrative of Yahweh, of us falling from Eden, entering a fallen world with corrupt hierarchical inequality, Israel to be the Light of the World to the Spiritual Gentiles via the Gospel or Tikkun Olam (same concept really), and to preach against the evils of hierarchy, and a Messiah to come who purges away how evil the world is and replaces it with a hierarchical-lacking utopia.

So why isn't Marxism Judeo-Christian?

Maybe Pope Francis was right, maybe the Christians were communists.

[Aethel]

Obviously, I'm not saying that Marxist is equivalent to Catholicism. I find Catholicism, as practiced, is way more in line with human nature, way more culturally preservative, and has the benefits of incorporating centuries of Greek philosophy as well as centuries of systematic Jewish theology whereas Marxism does not. And the Church itself is cynical towards reconciling human frailty here and now and curses those who believe social utopia can be found on earth (as perfection can only be found post-resurrection). Not to mention, of course, that the Catholic Saints tend to be substantially better human beings than the Marxist "Saints". I also find the culture the Catholic Church produced to be of substantially higher quality and meaning than Marxism. Between the two, give me a Catholic Europe over Marxist Europe any day.

But nevertheless, I guess my point is this: If we didn't have a Catholic Europe, would we have ever had that scourge on the earth that is Marxism?

[EastWest7]

Well, Aethel, I have heard the concept that socialism could be a possible derivative of Christianity a number of times. When I was an undergrad student at St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary I heard the question posed to me by a friend in the M Div program (and someone who was significantly to the political left of me). I think there are Gospel parables that might be used (exploited?) to "support" either side of such a debate.

Whether directly relevant or not to your question, the Chinese, Vietnamese and Cambodian forms of communism  were of course, implemented in a culture of Taoism, Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. Did these philosophies provide soil and nutriments for Marxism in those countries? 

My own thinking is that Marxism places so much importance on the State that this factor alone would seem antithetical to Judeo-Christian social ethics. Also there is the argument that a State's taxation may reach the level of theft, larceny. Many see the practical fruits of Marxism as functionally impossible - except of course for those bureaucrats at the top of the Party who benefit materially. But, I digress.

I think Marxism tends to deify the State. Therefore, I would not consider it as being or as having become, "Judeo-Christian".

 

   

 

[awkward customer]

Marxism is the ape of Christianity, just as Satan is the ape of God.  Marxism absolves people of sin by ascribing the problem of horrible human behaviour to hierarchical and therefore oppressive social systems.  It then promises utopia once these systems are dismantled.

Marxism is a dull copy of Christianity.  It's message essentially is - human beings are sinless, it's not our fault, it's society's fault, we can create heaven here on Earth, so we don't need God.  We're sinless after all.  Maybe we are Gods. 

[james03]

First off there is nothing existing that is judeo-Christian.  That is programming to eliminate the fact that the West IS Christendom.

Also, the jews died out around 70 A.D.  What exists today say they are jews, but are not, and are the synagogue of satan.  It is a religion created in Babylon centered around the book called the talmud, occult teaching called kabbalah, and which has an edited Old Testament that the Prots use to determine the books in their fake Bible (Isaiah does not have "they numbered all his bones"), which edits remove the prophesies of Jesus.

As far as why it is not Christian, it is a jewish heresy based on Tikkun Olam.  If you truly are interested in this topic, read Politics of Bad Faith by David Horowitz, a jew.

"We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth."

"Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true Socialist."

[Bonaventure]

It's certainly Judeo.

I don't know about Christian.

[Aethel]

Well, Aethel, I have heard the concept that socialism could be a possible derivative of Christianity a number of times. When I was an undergrad student at St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary I heard the question posed to me by a friend in the M Div program (and someone who was significantly to the political left of me). I think there are Gospel parables that might be used (exploited?) to "support" either side of such a debate.

Whether directly relevant or not to your question, the Chinese, Vietnamese and Cambodian forms of communism  were of course, implemented in a culture of Taoism, Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. Did these philosophies provide soil and nutriments for Marxism in those countries? 

My own thinking is that Marxism places so much importance on the State that this factor alone would seem antithetical to Judeo-Christian social ethics. Also there is the argument that a State's taxation may reach the level of theft, larceny. Many see the practical fruits of Marxism as functionally impossible - except of course for those bureaucrats at the top of the Party who benefit materially. But, I digress.

I think Marxism tends to deify the State. Therefore, I would not consider it as being or as having become, "Judeo-Christian".

I think it's fair to point out that Christianity has been embedded in the Western (and Eastern European) psyche since the 4th century, so perhaps it isn't entirely fair to say that a philosophical system that emerged with the combined circumstances of industrialization, monopolistic practices, disparate economic incomes, and so on, nearly 1500 years later, is a purely logical direct consequence of that 4th century idea.

With that being said, I still see some fundamental basic crossover between the tenants of both systems, particularly where anthropology is concerned. The Judeo-Christian system tends to at least imply that human nature is something that's mutable and has a very, very optimistic view of human nature - after all, we were in Eden and flawless, but then we fell and now have selfish impulses, and a day will come where we will resurrect again and be flawless. After all, God HIMSELF saw human nature as "divine enough" to incarnate in it. Perhaps after death, but I am grossly cynical that, in the now, that human nature is something that can really be changed to the degree that Communism and Judeo-Christian ideas say they can (at least, here on earth).

Obviously, technology and our philosophical development has not kept us in subordination to nature (to quote G.K. Chesterton, Christianity made us view nature as an equal, a brother or a sister in God's creation, rather than us subordinate to it worshipping it like the pagans), we can alter nature to a greater extent than ever before, but I think in many regards we are still heavily subordinate to nature.

Communist thought seems to completely ignore, for the most part, biological realities, and I wonder if that's from a place of ignorance and rooted in a ghost of Judeo-Christian anthropology (we aren't simply animals or animalistic, we are all divine and made in God's image and capable of curing our animalistic impulses)

In fact, we are a Post-Christian West. But I think the Phantom of Jesus still lingers, and I feel that Communism / Marxism (or Marxist thought applied to differing identity groups) does a great job at proclaiming moral superiority by an appeal to this Phantom. "Look at the Homeless, the Poor in Spirit, the Impoverished; aren't they Saint Martin's Treasures on Earth compared to the Evil Powers of this World? The Elite? The Billlionaye's (Bernie Sanders Voice)? Therefore, if you don't support us, you just hate the poor and impoverished" - and I feel like there has to be something substantive more than just "coincidence" that this parasitic system latches onto the remnants of Christian norms.

[Aethel]

Also, the jews died out around 70 A.D.  What exists today say they are jews, but are not, and are the synagogue of satan.  It is a religion created in Babylon centered around the book called the talmud, occult teaching called kabbalah, and which has an edited Old Testament that the Prots use to determine the books in their fake Bible (Isaiah does not have "they numbered all his bones"), which edits remove the prophesies of Jesus.

Even then, "The Synagogue of Satan" and Christianity share a fundamentally similar eschatology (even if Jews are Chiliastic) - we live in a fallen world, but a Messiah will come who will purge away the old and destroy the inherent injustices in life.

And Marxism holds the same eschatology, even if it's clouded in secular language.

And you can't just blame the Jews - many Catholics and Orthodox had no problem promoting or endorsing these ideas. Many did connect to it.

[Aethel]

Marxism is a dull copy of Christianity

But it's still a copy which only leads one to ask the question, "Would we be dealing with centuries of this garbage but for Christianity"? You see a seed of these ideas even in medieval stories like Robin Hood - the moral imperative of stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.

[Aethel]

When I was an undergrad student at St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary I heard the question posed to me by a friend in the M Div program (and someone who was significantly to the political left of me). I think there are Gospel parables that might be used (exploited?) to "support" either side of such a debate.

1. I wasn't aware St. Vlad's had an undergraduate curriculum. Interesting. Are you a Ruthenian Catholic now, I presume? (I know that there's a lot of weird crossover between the OCA, the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox, and the Ruthenian Catholics). I feel at spiritual home in the Traditional Latin Rite, and prefer that spirituality; but I do love the Byzantine Liturgy, and I think the Akathists are some of the best devotions the Church has ever produced, hands down.

2. Also another fair point. One only has to see how Protestants have taken the Book of Psalms to support the Prosperity Gospel; the Bible itself requires exegesis necessarily, and as such, it can be twisted to support any ideology. Necessarily, any philosophical idea post-Christianity would have some Christian influence; Hitler had no problem contorting the Bible to fit the ethos of Nazi Germany (even declaring Jesus a non-Jewish Galilean Aryan, but Paul the corrupting Rabbi), and America doesn't either (See Roger Williams's theological justification of Separating Church and State).

But I still think there's something unique compared to something like Nazism or American Enlightenment Ideals in Marxism connected to Christian anthropology and eschatology, it's appeal to the poor and impoverished for moral superiority, the demonization of the ruling class, and the destuction of culture / religion in order to propagate itself, that feels way more Judeo-Christian than not.

[EastWest7]

When I was an undergrad student at St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary I heard the question posed to me by a friend in the M Div program (and someone who was significantly to the political left of me). I think there are Gospel parables that might be used (exploited?) to "support" either side of such a debate.

1. I wasn't aware St. Vlad's had an undergraduate curriculum. Interesting. Are you a Ruthenian Catholic now, I presume? (I know that there's a lot of weird crossover between the OCA, the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox, and the Ruthenian Catholics). I feel at spiritual home in the Traditional Latin Rite, and prefer that spirituality; but I do love the Byzantine Liturgy, and I think the Akathists are some of the best devotions the Church has ever produced, hands down.

2. Also another fair point. One only has to see how Protestants have taken the Book of Psalms to support the Prosperity Gospel; the Bible itself requires exegesis necessarily, and as such, it can be twisted to support any ideology. Necessarily, any philosophical idea post-Christianity would have some Christian influence; Hitler had no problem contorting the Bible to fit the ethos of Nazi Germany (even declaring Jesus a non-Jewish Galilean Aryan, but Paul the corrupting Rabbi), and America doesn't either (See Roger Williams's theological justification of Separating Church and State).

But I still think there's something unique compared to something like Nazism or American Enlightenment Ideals in Marxism connected to Christian anthropology and eschatology, it's appeal to the poor and impoverished for moral superiority, the demonization of the ruling class, and the destuction of culture / religion in order to propagate itself, that feels way more Judeo-Christian than not.

1.I was in the St Vladimir's program with Iona College, there were about 20 students among us (of a total 80+ students there). I got my degree from Iona (BA, political science 1979) while at the seminary. Then returned and got 50% through the MDiv program and then temporarily left for a few years to get married. Then got an MA in theology at SVS via transfer credit at St Mary's RC Seminary in Cleveland while working in technical sales (composites and thermoplastic resins). Was Antiochian Orthodox and was received into the Melkite Byzantine Rite (1986) during the MA process.   

2. Much of my political thought process developed at St Vladimir's where there was a great deal of antipathy at the time towards Marxism as some of the professors and students had literally suffered under the USSR. Our dean, Fr ALexander Schmemann, was friends with Alexandr Solzhenitsyn and I can recall seeing both men together at the seminary, following Solzhenitsyn's move to Connecticut, just north of our location in Westchester County. 

Having said that, I haven't speculated much on the philosophical underpinnings of Marxism as I tend to look solely at its effect on history and culture. Of which, I believe its influence on America and the West has been incredible in the last 25-30 years. Big media and big tech are very powerful. And this gives me a great deal of concern, especially relative to my kids' and grandkids' future. From everything I see in America these days I fully expect us to follow the road of Soviet totalitarianism. Hope I am wrong.

[Josephine87]

Fulton Sheen called communism "the Cross without Christ".

Islam is another heresy of Christianity that is rarely recognized as such. There's a deceased blogger (Zippy Catholic) who had an interesting theory that the Protestant approach to the Bible was influenced by the way Mohammedans view the Koran.

[EastWest7]

Fulton Sheen called communism "the Cross without Christ".

Islam is another heresy of Christianity that is rarely recognized as such. There's a deceased blogger (Zippy Catholic) who had an interesting theory that the Protestant approach to the Bible was influenced by the way Mohammedans view the Koran.

Relative to your comment about Islam being a heresy of Christianity, I fully agree. When I was working on my master's at an Orthodox seminary, it came to me from studying several years of Church history as well as liturgically, in the prostrations we did during Lenten services (eg., the Prayer of St Ephraim the Syrian), that Islam had come out of Eastern Christianity. Perhaps of monophysite (heretical) Christian origin. The geography of these groups (Nestorians, Syriac Orthodox, Church of The East) might indicate this. Also, the complex Christological debates (against Nestorius among others) were central to the Council of Chalcedon. This council had been called by the Roman emperor Marcion in 451. Many of these groups (certainly to my knowledge, the Copts and Armenians) did not attend Chalcedon due to travel problems. If memory serves this was also a period of Arabic nationalism in opposition to Church and State of the eastern Roman (Byzantine) empire.     

[Aethel]

This council had been called by the Roman emperor Marcion in 451. Many of these groups (certainly to my knowledge, the Copts and Armenians) did not attend Chalcedon due to travel problems.

It was political. The Antiochians and the Alexandrians used two different formulas to define Christ which could both be interpreted in heretical ways; both formulas were a product of differing cultural / philosophical schools of theology. The Antiochians were hostile to the idea of unifying the human nature and divine nature of Christ, as they would fear this would destroy Christ's full humanity and divinity, so they defined Christ as having "two natures"; this could be interpreted in a heretical light, as "natures" could include "persons" (some Antiochians, such as Nestorius, defined Jesus and the Logos as two separate persons); the Alexandrians were hostile to the idea of Christ having separation within himself, because they interpreted Salvation as requiring God dying on the Cross; if Christ's humanity was disconnected from his divinity, that means salvation was pointless; as such, the Alexandrians defined Christ as having "one composite nature" (this could lead to the heresy of believing in no distinction between Christ's humanity and divinity).

Remember, back then there was no separation of Church and State, so establishing one school of thought over the other meant political supremacy.

The Alexandrians tried to make their formula the exclusive, supreme theological formula and to formally anathematize the Antiochians in the Council of Ephesus 449. It didn't go over well with the Emperor, who called Chalcedon, which only enshrined the Anthiochian formula.

The Alexandrians, that is the Coptic and Syriac (and by extension, Armenian) opposition to Chalcedon was more due to the fact that Pope Leo used the Antiochian formula but tried to explain the Antiochian formula in a way that reconciled with the Alexandrians. They view the Chalcedonian definition as synonymous with Nestorianism, so they viewed Chalcedon as heretical; it was a political move to separate from the Church, because they wanted to try to get the Alexandrian definition back as normative (which they were temporarily successful at, as Pro-Alexandrian emperors would, at various points, recognize the Copts / Syriacs as the lawful Church authority while anathematizing the Catholic / Orthodox Church authority). 

Interestingly, while Saint Cyril of Alexandria himself used the Alexandrian formula, he conceded in the Council of Ephesus that the Antiochian formula as valid when defined correctly, much to the dismay of his Alexandrian colleagues who saw it synonymous with Nestorianism. Ephesus II seemed to be an attempt by the Alexandrians to get rid of Cyril's concession to the Antiochians.


But we'll never actually figure out who was in the right or wrong, because both sides demonize their opponents as corrupt, violent thugs; The Chalcedonians view Ephesus II as a Robber Council which was so violent that Saint Flavian was murdered, with Papal Legates declaring the council "null" and walking out. The Copts view the Council of Chalcedon as coerced by the Emperor with swords to the throats of the Bishops. Given how notoriously corrupt Byzantine politics could be, the cynical part of me thinks both Councils were done by force.

[james03]

An interesting exercise when confronted with the idiotic prhase "Judeo-Christian".  We know that "Judeo" is not referring to culture, or ethnicity, as it is paired with the term "Christian".  But the jewish religion died out.  The jews made the covenant void by sacrificing children to demons.

They are returned to the former iniquities of their fathers, who refused to hear my words: so these likewise have gone after strange gods, to serve them: the house of Israel, and the house of Juda have made void my covenant, which I made with their fathers."

And the destruction was complete after the Romans destroyed the Temple and the sacrifice ended.

What sprung up in its place was Talmudism, hashed out in Bablylon.

Knowing this, we make the necessary correct substitution and reveal the absurdity of the phrase:

Talmudic-Christian.

And reveal the absurdity of the idea that marxism is based on Talmudic-Christian ideas.