[Gletkin]

All the Christian leftists I met are from progressive churches, not the reactionary dinosaur that is Orthodoxy. Those are just Soviet patriots and tankies, at best, and not monarchists.

Forgotten Leo Tolstoy already?
He was neither monarchist nor Leninist, but he was nevertheless a Russian Orthodox Christian pacifist anarchist.

[Potemkin]

Forgotten Leo Tolstoy already?
He was neither monarchist nor Leninist, but he was nevertheless a Russian Orthodox Christian pacifist anarchist.

...who was excommunicated from the Orthodox Church.

[Gletkin]

No doubt he had his run-ins with his Church's leadership.
All the same, he still considered it his faith regardless of what Church bureaucracy told him.

[Potemkin]

No doubt he had his run-ins with his Church's leadership.

That's putting it mildly. The head of the Church, Pobedonostsev, hated Tolstoy, and the feeling was mutual. Legend has it that the character of Anna Karenina's husband, the gnomish pedant and petty domestic tyrant Aleksei Karenin, was modelled on Pobedonostsev.

All the same, he still considered it his faith regardless of what Church bureaucracy told him.

Tolstoy's religious views were rather heterodox and syncretic. He is probably best thought of as a rationalist Christian anarchist.

[annatar1914]

Yes, and i'm not a big fan of Tolstoy anyway. The nearest I could say on the Orthodoxy continuum I would be within the 'Old Believer' range, but that has been rattling around in my head for a while, and expressed itself before.

The crux of my crisis hinged on a number of paradoxes concerning the authority of the State in this fallen world, and those problems for me have been resolved in an Eschatological manner. I know that the age I live within differs from previous ages, but that is not a bad thing, as the age of wealth inequality and exploitation nears it's foreordained end.

[Paradigm]

I definitely haven't seen as much leftism in Eastern Orthodoxy as there is in Catholicism or Protestantism, but admittedly my knowledge of Eastern Orthodoxy is somewhat limited. I do have one communist friend who's Eastern Orthodox, so it's not completely anomalous to me. But I've found Orthodox churches to be more prone to nationalism, given the way that they're tied to specific regions. I do know that the teachings of the Desert Fathers, who were rather anarchistic in their outlook, is influential on Orthodox theology.

[Conscript]

Forgotten Leo Tolstoy already?
He was neither monarchist nor Leninist, but he was nevertheless a Russian Orthodox Christian pacifist anarchist.

Exception to the rule. Orthodoxy by fortune of being non-Western is very conservative, prone to nationalism, and would do nothing but take up the mantle as the most disgusting form of soviet patriotism, and even pushes the limit of that it's so reactionary and ahistorical. It would be nothing more than the fruit of a divided post-91 Russia seeking an illiberal, anti-western national identity that is unifying. It's inherently alien to the left.

Tolstoy predates all of this, even 1917.

[annatar1914]

I definitely haven't seen as much leftism in Eastern Orthodoxy as there is in Catholicism or Protestantism, but admittedly my knowledge of Eastern Orthodoxy is somewhat limited. I do have one communist friend who's Eastern Orthodox, so it's not completely anomalous to me. But I've found Orthodox churches to be more prone to nationalism, given the way that they're tied to specific regions. I do know that the teachings of the Desert Fathers, who were rather anarchistic in their outlook, is influential on Orthodox theology.

I'm looking at it from the angle of the Fathers, who after all might be considered the model Orthodox Christians, and of the Orthodox Christians of today like the 'Old Believers' for example who have been shafted historically by the rise of the Modern Antichrist of State and Wealth Power, and who thus have a perfectly acceptable (to me anyway) counter-narrative that supports Christian Communism as the goal to be reached, as we approach the End Times. Nothing strange, most Christian Russian Philosophers, like Soloviev, supported a Christian Communism eventually.

The First Councils of the Church addressed the Trinitarian and Christological heresies and controversies and dealt with them. The Seventh Ecumenical Council addressed, with Iconography against the heresy of Iconoclasm, the presence of Christ and Christ's mystical body the Church in the World, the Church as Sacrament and Icon that brings man to look upon and head towards the World to Come. The Eighth and probably final Council will address among other things, the original Communism of the Church, and it's limitation to the Monasteries for most of Orthodox Christian history. It will render the Christian world what it originally was, a kind of Monastery.

[Gletkin]

I definitely haven't seen as much leftism in Eastern Orthodoxy as there is in Catholicism or Protestantism

That may or may not be true.
I suppose it depends on what one means by "leftism" too. Today some mainstream Protestant churches have adopted center-left stances on some cultural issues, often provoking culturally conservative "Free ****" splinter groups. But I don't think any have gone so far as to embrace "liberation theology". Pope John XXIII was supposedly liberal, but I don't know how far "left" he really was. Today, Pope Francis seems more tolerant of LTs, but again, he doesn't actually embrace LT itself. Other than John XXIII and Francis, the Vatican was usually hostile to liberation theologists.

For what it's worth:
"The Liberal Rot Has Even Infected the Orthodox Church"
"Progressive Orthodoxy?"
"Liberal Orthodox Christians?"

Granted, the wording of or even the mere "?" in these titles do imply that at least by reputation, OC is more conservative than Protestantism or Roman Catholicism. It could be that there has yet to be an Orthodox Patriarch that was/is as liberal as Popes JohnXXIII or Francis or that Archbishop of Canterbury whose name escapes me.
But all the same, "liberal" or "leftist" Orthodox Christians have existed.

Exception to the rule.

Aren't all far-left believers so?
In addition to Tolstoy there were also Sergei Bulgakov and Nikolai Berdyaev who also interpreted their OC faith in "leftist" ways.
Of course, these are only the "famous" ones. Who knows how many common OCs tried to balance their faith with "leftist" views?

Orthodoxy by fortune of being non-Western is very conservative, prone to nationalism, and would do nothing but take up the mantle as the most disgusting form of soviet patriotism, and even pushes the limit of that it's so reactionary and ahistorical. It would be nothing more than the fruit of a divided post-91 Russia seeking an illiberal, anti-western national identity that is unifying. It's inherently alien to the left.

Tolstoy predates all of this, even 1917.

What do you mean by that last phrase?
Do you think that Orthodox Christianity became "inherently alien to the left" after 1917?

[Il Doge]

I don't really understand how a Christian can be communist when they're told not to covet anything that their neighbor has. You can't force spiritual enlightenment upon someone.

[Potemkin]

I don't really understand how a Christian can be communist when they're told not to covet anything that their neighbor has. You can't force spiritual enlightenment upon someone.

I don't really understand how a Christian can be capitalist when they're told to give all their goods to the poor. You can't force spiritual enlightenment upon someone.

[Conscript]

Aren't all far-left believers so?
In addition to Tolstoy there were also Sergei Bulgakov and Nikolai Berdyaev who also interpreted their OC faith in "leftist" ways.
Of course, these are only the "famous" ones. Who knows how many common OCs tried to balance their faith with "leftist" views?

Well, yes, and there's always those oddball figures working as outliers in the leftist movement or as weird pseudoleftists in non-left organizations and parties.

But the fact is the Orthodox Church is a dinosaur in its conservatism and was part and parcel to White Russia. There's nothing redeemable about that, no matter the efforts of these few individuals and their unorthodox ideas.

What do you mean by that last phrase?
Do you think that Orthodox Christianity became "inherently alien to the left" after 1917?

No I mean, I think during and after the GPW when the USSR started becoming identifiable with Russia, it set the stage for this reactionary combination of Orthodoxy and Soviet patriotism, two things alien to the left. That talk about the church canonizing Stalin epitomizes what I mean. It represents the most degenerate side of the USSR, the nationalism and conservative opposition to the West, and is completely devoid of any revolutionary potential. It is a post-91 nationalist synthesis, of course it is alien to us. It would be even to Lenin, let alone most reds today who are to the left of him or Stalin.

To me it just sets the stage for a second assault on Orthodoxy, as it is providing once again ideological justification for a particularly reactionary (in relation to the West) Russian state and its opposition to Western-style capitalism. It would no doubt find actual Marxists to be too socially liberal, cosmopolitan, or otherwise 'Western'.

[Il Doge]

I don't really understand how a Christian can be capitalist when they're told to give all their goods to the poor. You can't force spiritual enlightenment upon someone.

The man in the story was told to sell all of his goods, give to the poor and presumably use some of the assets from the sale to follow Jesus. It's not the same thing as giving all of the goods directly to the poor.

[annatar1914]

The man in the story was told to sell all of his goods, give to the poor and presumably use some of the assets from the sale to follow Jesus. It's not the same thing as giving all of the goods directly to the poor.

'Presumably'.... A lot hinges on that word. And what then would you make of God striking Annas and his wife Saphira dead in the story from the Book of Acts, for not given their goods to the Community, but saying that they did?

Conscript I can't answer, because his position is incoherently hung up on Sovietism and Marxist-Leninism (of which philosophy I am neither confirming nor denying in this thread, only giving SPIRITUAL REASONINGS for my position, which he and others are forgetting) and his 'presumably' present Atheist situation.

It doesn't matter; i'm in the goodly company of most Russian Philosophers who were Orthodox Christian from the 19th century, of Fr. Sergei Bulgakov, Fr. Pavel Florensky, Nicholai Berdaeyev, and of Russian/Soviet patriots like General Alexei Brusilov, and of the Mladorossi and the Eurasianists. If they can square their Communism and their Orthodox Christianity quite comfortably, so can I.

I just don't understand why it guts some people that my Orthodox Christianity actually LED ME to this point, of Christian Communism. That, and the gradual merging of Islam and Capitalism (as Islam was founded as a Trader's religion) as time goes on.

[Conscript]

Because your 'communism' is Eurasian-centric and you just finally decided to combine your East slavic opposition to Western values with (accordingly Orthodox) religious opposition to Western liberal-capitalism, basically. You can claim to be following these pre- 20th century figures, but i dont think you can escape the stigma of essentially taking up a modern Eurasianist synthesis of two periods of Russian history.

Even if we accept you have nothing to do with any of this and are just taking the logical conclusion of Orthodoxy, do you even believe in statelessness, classlessness, commonly owned land and open borders, socially progressive values, and so on? Or do you believe in some sort of religious social democracy (with a monarch) that's nice the poor and draws from anti-liberal, anti-Western periods in Russian history? There's a big difference.

If not the former, it's not communism and you are just doing the latter, which makes you as communist as a Eurasianist. As in, just a nationalist with a red flag and a Stalin portrait, but in your case also a bible and a double headed eagle.

Its good you mention Islam and capitalism. That is just another example of illiberal, state capitalism mixed with anti-democratic, anti-Western politics, which is what (russian) communism represents to you. Both draw on old history, just in your case that also features a red flag so you call yourself a communist.

[Il Doge]

'Presumably'.... A lot hinges on that word. And what then would you make of God striking Annas and his wife Saphira dead in the story from the Book of Acts, for not given their goods to the Community, but saying that they did?

Conscript I can't answer, because his position is incoherently hung up on Sovietism and Marxist-Leninism (of which philosophy I am neither confirming nor denying in this thread, only giving SPIRITUAL REASONINGS for my position, which he and others are forgetting) and his 'presumably' present Atheist situation.

It doesn't matter; i'm in the goodly company of most Russian Philosophers who were Orthodox Christian from the 19th century, of Fr. Sergei Bulgakov, Fr. Pavel Florensky, Nicholai Berdaeyev, and of Russian/Soviet patriots like General Alexei Brusilov, and of the Mladorossi and the Eurasianists. If they can square their Communism and their Orthodox Christianity quite comfortably, so can I.

I just don't understand why it guts some people that my Orthodox Christianity actually LED ME to this point, of Christian Communism. That, and the gradual merging of Islam and Capitalism (as Islam was founded as a Trader's religion) as time goes on.

There's a reoccurring theme that God doesn't like being lied to, though I don't remember that story very well ATM so I can't get more specific. Regarding the presumably part, you can note that Jesus didn't say to give the items to the poor, he said to sell them and give to the poor. This indicates that Jesus wanted the poor to receive funds, presumably to cover the necessities they need more of if they are poor. So while I'm using the word "presumably" here again, I don't think there's actually much of a presumption, the sale part is explicit and if someone is poor in that era, their lack of basic necessities is also a presumption.

A Christian is encouraged to give to other people because it's what God wants and because it saves his soul. Not "just because it's the right thing to do" and not to distribute luxuries for the sake of luxuries. We are told not to covet but also not to acquire material abundance. If you don't have material abundance, there is little if anything for others to covert that you have. If luxuries are bad for the soul, giving someone a luxury arguably imperils their soul, just as having material abundance (Greek: plousis [sic]) has a similar effect because you're encouraging them to be covetous and harming your own soul.

What I'm trying to say here is that this may sound like communism but it's not communism. Communism forces people to do those things for secular reasons based upon a communal interest and Christianity encourages people to do those things for spiritual and individual reasons regarding saving their own souls, communal benefits are secondary under the Biblical point of view and there is no coercion by humans involved.

[quetzalcoatl]

Jesus didn't say to give the items to the poor, he said to sell them and give to the poor.

Other translations yield a different perspective:

go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor

New Living Translation

go and sell what you own and give the money to the destitute

International Standard Version

go sell your possessions and give the money to the poor

NET Bible

sell what you own. Give the money to the poor

GOD'S WORD® Translation

go and sell what thou hast and give it to the poor

Jubilee Bible 2000

I'm not competent to say which translation most accurately expresses Jesus' meaning, but I find this commentary convincing: "...This was the counsel which Jesus gave, denoting the stumbling block which lay in the way of the ruler's endeavours after perfection. He was voluntarily to deprive himself of the earthly thing to which he fondly clung, his wealth, and to embrace a life of poverty and hardship. Give to the poor. The money obtained by the sale of his possessions he was to distribute, not to relations and friends, who might make some return, but to the poor, from whom he could expect no recompense..."

[annatar1914]

Conscript, you replied;

Because your 'communism' is Eurasian-centric and you just finally decided to combine your East slavic opposition to Western values with (accordingly Orthodox) religious opposition to Western liberal-capitalism, basically.

No, it's pretty much a theological issue with me; I find that the ultimate earthly expression of Orthodox Christianity, would impel the 'Right Believer' in Christ's Church to become an actual Communist.

You can claim to be following these pre- 20th century figures,

I can and do; however you try to (perhaps unconciously) mute their effect by locking them in to a 'peculiar' time and place, an egregious historicism that moreover isn't particularly Marxist either.... As some of these men came before, during and after Marx's own time and place. If he still has something to say than....Why can't they?

but i dont think you can escape the stigma of essentially taking up a modern Eurasianist synthesis of two periods of Russian history.

Exactly why you are incorrect about what i'm trying to say, because that's not what i'm saying. If a Eurasianist agrees with me on Communism, I can't help but see the influence of Orthodoxy, as most of them were, but that hardly makes me buy the rest of what they were selling. I'm open minded, but not so much my brain falls out. I've read Dugin... I mean, wow, he's pretty nebulous and incomprehensible to me in most places where i've read him, and where he isn't, I find him Heterodox in relation to Orthodoxy in way too many areas.

Even if we accept you have nothing to do with any of this and are just taking the logical conclusion of Orthodoxy, do you even believe in statelessness, classlessness, commonly owned land and open borders, socially progressive values, and so on?

Ultimately yes, although I'd have to carefully define 'socially progressive values' as certain liberal bourgeosie ideas have crept in regarding this into the Left, those miserable 'Identity Politics' that has hamstrung the 'progressive forces' in the post-1917 era.

Or do you believe in some sort of religious social democracy (with a monarch) that's nice the poor and draws from anti-liberal, anti-Western periods in Russian history?There's a big difference.

No, Russian Orthodox Christianity got burned on these matters pretty bad, literally, and the State and World System are to be viewed with a jaundiced eye, to say the least. It is, as the 'Old Ritualist' Orthodox Christians said; 'Antichrist'.

If not the former, it's not communism and you are just doing the latter, which makes you as communist as a Eurasianist. As in, just a nationalist with a red flag and a Stalin portrait, but in your case also a bible and a double headed eagle.

God forbid!

Its good you mention Islam and capitalism. That is just another example of illiberal, state capitalism mixed with anti-democratic, anti-Western politics, which is what (russian) communism represents to you. Both draw on old history, just in your case that also features a red flag so you call yourself a communist.

No, not at all; I see Islam as the last and most perfect iteration of Reactionary Fascistic Capitalism, the sacralization of riches, wealth, class domination, warfare, and all manner or religious obscuritanism and imperialist barbarism. And more.

So there you have it, nothing contradicting secularist ideas on the matter that I can see, except a scholastic and frankly bourgeosie vestigial remnant of Atheism, which does no justice to Dialectical Materialism either, I might add.

[Il Doge]

I'm not competent to say which translation most accurately expresses Jesus' meaning, but I find this commentary convincing: "...This was the counsel which Jesus gave, denoting the stumbling block which lay in the way of the ruler's endeavours after perfection. He was voluntarily to deprive himself of the earthly thing to which he fondly clung, his wealth, and to embrace a life of poverty and hardship. Give to the poor. The money obtained by the sale of his possessions he was to distribute, not to relations and friends, who might make some return, but to the poor, from whom he could expect no recompense..."

They're all saying the same thing, which is what I meant to communicate. Selling and giving to the poor is not the same thing as giving your luxuries directly to the poor. Since modern communism is usually about a desire to distribute material luxuries and not to discourage material abundance in the first place, Christianity is not the same as communism. Christianity presumes capitalism.

As I was saying in my earlier post, the purpose of this is to save the soul of the giver and to help him remember the things that are really important in life, and to provide the basics to others, it's not so that other people now have the luxuries themselves.

It's also not about "equality" which is impossible.

[quetzalcoatl]

Selling and giving to the poor is not the same thing as giving your luxuries directly to the poor. Since modern communism is usually about a desire to distribute material luxuries and not to discourage material abundance in the first place, Christianity is not the same as communism. Christianity presumes capitalism.

As I was saying in my earlier post, the purpose of this is to save the soul of the giver and to help him remember the things that are really important in life, and to provide the basics to others, it's not so that other people now have the luxuries themselves.

It's also not about "equality" which is impossible.

I don't think Christianity presumes capitalism, although it is not primarily interested it in overthrowing it (or any other secular order). Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think Jesus was condemning material goods per se, but rather the idolatry of property. Since capitalists quite explicitly idolize property, they exile themselves from the Christian community - perhaps without understanding they do so.

A distinct strand of western philosophy derives all other rights from property, beginning with the ownership of the self. Both capitalism and communism share this basic assumption, but go in different directions with it. Capitalists assume that ownership, whether of self or labor, is transferable based on the free exchange among sovereign individuals. Communists assume that self-ownership cannot be waived or transferred in this fashion, and that enterprise must thus be owned collectively. Christians see human worth not in terms of self-ownership or a sovereign self, but in submission to the will of God.

Annatar's version of Christian communism can't be a legal or state structure, it would seem to me. It would grow organically out of a Christian community following the teachings of Jesus.