Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: "Russian Orthodox Anarchism in the 21st Century" article on Russian Radio Station

  1. #1
    Senior Member Avvakum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    830
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default "Russian Orthodox Anarchism in the 21st Century" article on Russian Radio Station

    ErUFKok3bF

    RADIO OMSK INTERVIEW ON CHRISTIAN ANARCHISM

    Jakov Krotov: Especially by Prawoslav (“Russian orthodox”) Christians the Russian revolution of 1917 was seen as a victory of anarchy, chaos and lawlessness. In his book “The Philosophy of Inequality” written during around the time of this revolution the Prawoslav thinker Nikolai Berdyayev devoted a chapter to a critique of anarchism. Still, in his autobiography written shortly before his death he described himself as a Christian mystic transcendent anarchist. How to explain this? The anarchism that took shape in Russia in the 19th century, with such names as Bakunin, Tolstoy and Kropotkin was the most remarkable Russian contribution to the political culture of the Europe of those days. Especially the anarchism developed by Bakunin was clearly anti-Christian. God is a Lord, a master. How can a slave of God be free? Impossible, said Bakunin. That's why anarchists fight every religion, in particular Christendom. So, my first question to our guest is: how is it possible that, among the greatest Prawoslav thinkers of the 20th century, some embrace that once anti-Christian anarchism? Where is Bakunin's anarchism different from Berdyayev's anarchism?


    Ignati Hanzin: The reason is that the word “anarchism” is often used incorrectly, too broadly. For, what is anarchism? Anarchism means “no power”, no violent power, no power over people not exercised by themselves, no State. A State is also an organisation of people, but of a group of people who have taken all the power in a society into their hands to the prejudice of the rest of society. Understood in this way anarchism is not at all incompatible with the Christian teachings.
    We should not forget that Jesus Christ relied exclusively on the authority he had and on the free acceptance of the graces he had to offer. I can accept God's grace and thus be sanctified and live a holy life. But I can also reject God's grace because I have a free will.
    In this sense the Christian concept of freedom as free acceptance of a gift is the complete opposite of submission to some outside power, to what are called laws. Remember what Metropolit Illarion wrote in his “A word about law and grace”. The law (meant was the Jewish law) prescribes to do this or to do that. If you don't do it you will be punished. Grace is accepted freely, nobody forces you. in fact, you go to it, you are happy with it, you may accept it or reject it, you have the right to be saved or to perish spiritually, but nobody threatens you with punishment. That is the true concept of Christendom as preached by Christ and the apostles. This concept was later perverted by the hierarchical, authoritarian, imperial Church of the Middle Ages. But it is totally identical with authentic, wise, mystical, humanist anarchism.



    Jakov Krotov: I would like to observe that the French philosopher and political scientist Jacques Ellul, a prominent theoretician of 20th century Christian anarchism, was a Protestant who based his Christian anarchism on the Old, not on the New Testament. He pointed to the fact that the Old Testament describes the life of Israel as rather anarchistic, that is if we see anarchism as hostility to the State, which is clearly the only functional definition of anarchism, not violence or terrorism. What this means is another question. During many ages Israel was governed by judges, there was no monarchy. When God gave in and gave Israel a king he did this with the warning that he had given them a king and a big State because of their stubbornness, but that with a king they would be far worse off than without a king. Of the protagonists and godly persons of the Old Testament, Ellul (as a Protestant he gave great authority to the Old Testament) points out that strictly speaking only Joseph the Beautiful and the prophet Daniel collaborated with the State, with all the consequences this had. The vast majority of the prophets of the Old Testament were anarchists, that is people who were absolutely not prepared to submit to those in power. They were prepared to lay down their lives and wanted to tell only the truth to the king, nothing else.
    And then there is the letter of the apostle Paul to the Romans, the famous chapter 13, in which he says that everybody should submit to those in power. Christian Statism was during the Middle Ages based on this text. Isn't that shameful, Father Ignati? After all, the apostle Paul spoke not only for the Middle Ages but he said at the very dawn of Christendom that we must submit to those in power. Where is the demarcation line, what is acceptable, what not?


    Ignati Hanzhin: A very interesting question indeed. Jacques Ellul explored the origins of the anarchistic thinking in ancient Israel and in other ancient societies and saw this anarchistic thinking realised in the power of the judges.
    I don't entirely agree here with Jacques Ellul because the power of the judges was an embryonic form of the later authoritarian monarchical power. The power of the judges was not based on the general consensus of the community but on the decision of some charismatic talented person who took all the power into his hands, and this resulted in power usurpation in general. Once there are people at the top of some more or less local community why not put somebody at the top of the biggest community, the people, in this case the people of Israel? And this happened. At that point religion took characteristics not of its own, it became authoritarian.
    The authoritarian element in religion made the priest into a bureaucrat, a leader, a commander, that is to say somebody who is not only a distributor of God's graces, who not only calls, persuades and speaks about good and better, but who is a ruler, an expert in laws that have to be implemented and who makes people implement those laws. With the tragedy of religion in the State as a result.



    (Question of a listener)
    Jakov Krotov: Fyedor Dostoyevski was for many people of his days a symbol of a State worshipper, one has only to read his diary to understand this. But as a writer he was the author of the famous interpretation of "Jesus' temptation in the desert" describing how Satan offered Jesus power over all the kingdoms of the world if he worshipped him. Many Christian commentators, among them Jacques Ellul, stress that this means that State power comes from Satan because it is power usurpated with violence and coercion. The Gospels tell also of the unique miracle that happened when Jesus paid temple tax, a State tax due by all the Jews. Jesus asked the apostles to catch a fish and in its mouth they found a coin. By the ideas of those days this was a joke on the tax gatherers. It meant that the expression "give to the emperor what you owe to the emperor" doesn't mean that one should give the emperor more but that one should give to the emperor just what one owes to him, not one kopeike more.
    In this sense the exhortation of the apostle Paul means only that one should obey those in power, not go to extremes, not refuse to obey, but "Brothers, you are called to freedom". Freedom is what it is all about for the apostle and his call to obey is made in the context of his sermon "On love", where love is ready to do much, even to humiliate oneself. This leads to the question: when got the authoritarian principle the upper hand in the Christian church?


    Ignati Hanzhin: To answer to this question we must first look at the beginnings of Christendom. The first Christian communities had a charismatic hierarchy. This meant that somebody was elected from within a Christian community not because of his wealth, his influence or power but because his piousness and because of the esteem he enjoyed. He accepted to lead the community without special rights or privileges. He was responsible for the inevitable contacts with the authorities, collected donations, etc. He had no power in the classical sense but over time rich and influential people and people in positions of power joined the Church and started working in line with the Church.
    From the times of emperor Constantine onwards the Church became practically part of the State structure with a fundamental change in the structure of the Church as a result. The head of a group of communities, the episkop, became a kind if governor. The priests obtained a certain power and the possibility to own some property - they became different from the common believers in everything: in dress, in remuneration as well as in other things which usually distinguish representatives of governments from the common people. This system got its definitive shape with the creation of a monarchical central power with popes, bishops, mitropolits etc. In a word, the church became a State in the State.



    (Questions of listeners)
    Jakov Krotov: I repeat that present day anarchism is very often close to Christendom and claims very good grounds. The anti-Christian anarchism of the 19th century, the violent and terrorist anarchism has been defeated. How came the fall of apartheid in 20th century South Africa? Nelson Mandela did not win when he used violence but when he moved to absolute non-violence. In the US not the Black Panthers achieved equal rights for the Black Americans but Martin Luther King, the Christian church minister. We seen practically everywhere the same. In India Gandhi's concept achieved independence. Hitler's and Stalin's violence were not victorious. So, terrorist anarchism is unacceptable, although its logic is, unfortunately, often very understandable. The logic of despair, of violence to tell what one cannot tell in the papers. The logic of the Russian anarchists: systematic violence and explosions can have an influence on the system: "If every governor general of Moscow is blown up, sooner or later there is nobody left who wants to be blown up and the post becomes vacant." But things did not go this way, the system proved too strong. Violence as a warning to society doesn't work either. There is one small difference, though: all those characteristics of terrorist anarchism exist also in the State, when anarchism becomes violent it uses things it wishes to destroy as weapons.
    What answer gives Christian anarchism to the practical questions of life? Should we take part in elections or send our children to State schools?


    (Question of a listener)
    Jakov Krotov: The problem is, Christian anarchism says, that governments never obey their own laws. In that respect they are far more anarchistic than anarchists. Anarchists revolt in words but obey the laws. States, not only the Russian State, tend not to obey their laws.
    Jacques Ellul stressed that, to the difference of 19th century anarchism, contemporary anarchism is not only politics, politics is even not its first thing, to-day's anarchists work in the first place non-politically. The alternative schools are an example. Anarchists don't send their children to State schools, nor do they keep their children at home because they see the dangers thereof. A famous alternative school was founded by Daniel Cohn Bendit's brother.
    Of course, contemporary anarchism says, anarchist education is not meant to bring an ideal anarchist society, Christian anarchists do not believe in the possibility of an ideal society, they believe in God's Kingdom. Nevertheless, Christians ought to consider this education, this anarchist opposition to State totalitarianism and State pressure as obligatory, otherwise the State swallows everything. The anarchists of the 19th century saw man as good; if only the State as source of theft and murdering disappeared, if the police disappeared crime and bandits would disappear.
    Looking at present-day Christian anarchism, Father Ignati, what, in your opinion, has changed, in which respect is the position of present-day Christian anarchism towards the State different from classic anarchism?


    Ignati Hanzhin: Very much has changed. You mentioned alternative education. I'm rather in favour of individual home education. In my opinion educated Christian parents can educate their children far better than any school. But there is more. Christian anarchism builds free structures. You mention the free schools. It is also possible to build a community, a beautiful community, where people live together, where all decisions are taken by consensus on a basis of free agreement. It is even possible to build a group of people who work together in complete freedom on a basis of mutual aid without any government pressure, peaceful alternative structures such as Auroville in India. You probably have heard of this city. People of different races and nationalities live there together. They do not change the laws of the surrounding society, they are not communists, they do not reject private property nor any customs of the surrounding society. They built an entirely free city where everybody is free, where everybody takes part in the administration of society as she or he likes, the majority does not rule the minority as happens in classic democracies. If the minority doesn't agree with the decisions of the majority it can do things in its own way. All look what happens, which way was best.
    Christian anarchism is in the first place an ethical movement which works for perfection, for perfection of the relationship of man with nature and of the relationships among human beings.
    We have not yet spoken of ecology but in these days Christian anarchism and ethical anarchism in general are very closely linked with the ecological movement, with the protection and conservation of nature and of all living beings, in a word with a truly Christian relationship to all that lives. They reject violence, not just a priori but because there is absolutely no need for violence. Violence is an obstacle, it is detrimental, there is no place for it here.



    (Question of a listener about the many religions)
    Jakov Krotov: Why there are so many religions? Because of anarchism. Because man is totally free. God is the first anarchist. God doesn't impose himself, God calls people as children. If we say that we are slaves of God we are joking a little because we have been made children by Christ. In both the Old and the New Testament there is a lot of humor. I know of at least five monographs on this matter, it is just very old humor. If we don't understand the humour in the 19th century paper "Strekoza"; how can we understand two thousand years old humour? When Jesus says that the birds have nests and the foxes burrows whereas he has no place to rest his head he is, of course, joking, he is ironic, self-ironic, highly humoristic.


    (Question of a listener)
    Jakov Krotov: Take a very simple thing, a hot issue in Russia to-day: Should anarchists vote? Jacques Ellul felt they shouldn't. A Christian, as an anarchist and free person, should not vote. Why not? Because politics always means power and hierarchy. To the difference of our guest Father Ignati Hanzhin, Ellul rejected the ecological movement [I think: meant is: ecological parties. BM]: ecology yes, "Green" no. Where there is a movement, where there is a structure, be it the "Rainbow Keepers" [an ecological organisation with members in Russia, Ukraine and, possibly, other countries, BM] or whatever, there is power, which means that anarchists have no business there. Anarchists consciously reject everything containing elements of a bourgeois, socialist or communist society: vaccinations, taxes, obligatory education and even decentralised power, because a mayor can be worse than a Roman emperor - anarchists reject power tout court. Social life should begin at the bottom. Which is, of course, utopian, but, as Vladimir Solovyev said, only utopia is worth realisation.


    (A listener thanks the organisers for the programme)
    Jakov Krotov: Thank you. Anarchism started in France. Proudhon was the first to call himself an anarchist. His was a monarchic anarchism. Anarchism flowered in Russia but at the moment anarchism, I mean true, conscious anarchism is most developed in the U.S.
    Often not anarchism proves to be a problem but whether one is a citizen of a given country or not. A classic example is the refusal of the Supreme Court of the USA in 1931 to grant American citizenship to a Canadian Baptist minister who taught theology at the U.S. Yale University. The minister refused to pronounce the usual oath of loyalty to the USA, in which loyalty to the American constitution comes first. The minister held that a Christian has to be more loyal to God, see Acts of the Apostles 5: 29: one should not be more loyal to people than to God.
    The judge felt that this minister "gives his own interpretation of the will of God and uses this personal interpretation as his main point", contrary to the nation's need to keep things going. If the government decides to go to war and everybody decides for her or himself whether this pleases God we get total anarchy and chaos. The government must be able to rely on the unconditional loyalty of the citizens, which is why the oath is worded the way it is. From that day onwards critics of the Supreme Court of the United States say that the United States are no longer the theocracy they were, say, in 1789. So, long live anarchy (in the United States anarchists are usually called "anarcho-libertarians").
    But then a question arises reminding of the collision that happened in Russia in 1927, when Pravoslav archieri and priests were asked to swear loyalty to the Soviet powers. Many did this, which resulted in post-revolutionary anarchism in Russia. Schismatics, people who left the womb of the Moscow patriarchat were accused of anarchism. The Old Believers, aren't they anarchists? [Old Believers: Pravoslavs who refused to accept the reforms introduced (imposed) by a Moscow patriarch in the 18th century. BM] Father Ignati, which place has anarchism in the history of the Russian Pravoslav church? Was there anarchism in it?


    Ignati Hanzhin: Historical anarchism was sometimes an ally of Christendom and sometimes an adversary. The anarcho-communists were fierce enemies of Christendom and so in fact destroyed anarchist thinking in Russia. The same can be said of Bakunin and similar anarchists. But there was also Christian anarchism. Tolstoyism was true anarchism. Tolstoy followed the teachings of Christ, although he was not a church member.
    To refuse to be a member of a church does not mean that one rejects Christendom. One can also wish to be a member of a church but reject, for instance, a church as represented by the present Moscow patriarchat. To take the oath of 1927, for instance, was gruesome treason to the spirit of Christendom as one promised unconditional loyalty to a power rejecting Christendom and religion in general.


    Jakov Krotov: Does this mean that, in your opinion, the priests who refused obedience to the Moscow patriarchat in those days were anarchists in the best sense of the word?

    Ignati Hanzhin: Undoubtedly.



    Jakov Krotov: The Old Believers rejected the Pravoslav church from before the Soviet times because they never agreed with the archierei. Further, there are those who rejected the priestdom or people, whom we might call present-day Old Believers, who reject the Moscow patriarchat because it engages in oil and wodka trade and lobbies with he government. In the Old Believers' church on Rogozh cemetery or at the railway station Byelorusski in Moscow you won't see the people selling or consuming wodka or cigarettes, they have a very anarchist relationship to the authorities. Could we describe their attitude as a model of Christian anarchism?


    Ignati Hanzhin: I wouldn't describe their attitude as a model of Christian anarchism. Christian anarchism is not a matter of simply rejecting links with authorities, godless or not. Power is always very far from Christian thinking. Christian anarchism means personal freedom, communities of entirely free and equal people, people who have their own opinion, who are able to disagree, to live as free people in their community. This means of necessity rejection of authoritarianism and of dictatorship in one's own community too. You won't find that among the Old Believers nor in any of the old Russian sects.



    (Observation of a listener)
    Jakov Krotov: Fortunately, God is a great anarchist, God's spirit is not a matter of labels. You may find God's spirit in the Moscow patriarchat, among Old Believers, among Protestants, among Catholics, but it is not necessarily in any of those circles. God is a great anarchist.


    (Question of a listener)
    Jakov Krotov: Many people in Russia to-day see anarchism as the cause of Russian totalitarianism. This may seem paradoxical but the master of paradox Boris Paramonov wrote that power hypertrophy and totalitarianism in Russia are a reaction to the anarchism and the ungovernability of the Russian people. In the Kremlin they must be happy with this idea. Unfortunately, the truth is in something else. Man fears freedom, it's easier under the yoke of the anti-Christ, of Statehood than under the sweet and light yoke of Jesus Christ, our Lord. One can, of course, not be an anarchist or a Christian anarchist but yet be a follower of Jesus Christ, provided one realises that, as followers of Christ, we are obliged to be free and to decide for ourselves and to not leave decisions to the State.
    Index
    Last edited by Avvakum; January 28th, 2014 at 03:11.
    "God's an old hand at miracles, he brings us from nonexistence to life. And surely he will resurrect all human flesh on the last day in the twinkling of an eye. But who can comprehend this? For God is this: he creates the new and renews the old. Glory be to him in all things!" Archpriest Avvakum

  2. #2
    Senior Member Avvakum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    830
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: "Russian Orthodox Anarchism in the 21st Century" article on Russian Radio Statio

    And yes, I am a Christian Anarchist and Communist, a firm believer in Liberty and in Love, and i'll be happy to explain where that makes me the firmest friend of the United States and the deepest enemy of the 'Trans-Asian Axis' and of Islam that there is.
    "God's an old hand at miracles, he brings us from nonexistence to life. And surely he will resurrect all human flesh on the last day in the twinkling of an eye. But who can comprehend this? For God is this: he creates the new and renews the old. Glory be to him in all things!" Archpriest Avvakum

  3. #3
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: "Russian Orthodox Anarchism in the 21st Century" article on Russian Radio Statio

    And yes, I am a Christian Anarchist and Communist,
    Thank you for clearing that up.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  4. #4
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: "Russian Orthodox Anarchism in the 21st Century" article on Russian Radio Statio

    Quote Originally Posted by Avvakum View Post
    And yes, I am a Christian Anarchist and Communist, a firm believer in Liberty and in Love, and i'll be happy to explain where that makes me the firmest friend of the United States and the deepest enemy of the 'Trans-Asian Axis' and of Islam that there is.

    So.... I had to look this up, but basically this is what "Christian Anarchism" is:

    Christian anarchism is a movement in political theology and political philosophy which synthesizes Christianity and anarchism.[1] It is grounded in the belief that there is only one source of authority to which Christians are ultimately answerable, the authority of God as embodied in the teachings of Jesus, and thus rejects the idea that human governments have ultimate authority over human societies. Christian anarchists denounce the state as they claim it is violent, deceitful and, when glorified, idolatrous.[2][3]


    Thus... you can not be both.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  5. #5
    Senior Member Avvakum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    830
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: "Russian Orthodox Anarchism in the 21st Century" article on Russian Radio Statio

    Quote Originally Posted by American Patriot View Post
    So.... I had to look this up, but basically this is what "Christian Anarchism" is:

    Christian anarchism is a movement in political theology and political philosophy which synthesizes Christianity and anarchism.[1] It is grounded in the belief that there is only one source of authority to which Christians are ultimately answerable, the authority of God as embodied in the teachings of Jesus, and thus rejects the idea that human governments have ultimate authority over human societies. Christian anarchists denounce the state as they claim it is violent, deceitful and, when glorified, idolatrous.[2][3]


    Thus... you can not be both.
    "Both" what? If by that you mean a Christian can't be Communist, not so. I'm not a Statist or Marxist so-called 'communist' but rather advocate a position, common to Anarcho-Communists, that people will gradually and voluntarily tend to co-operate the more they become free and the more they lose their dependance upon the State-or rather, the State's dependance on them. And that goes for all man-made and involuntary schemes and hierarchies. I am also something of a 'Primativist'.

    Voluntary and free Communism of the total kind has existed from the beginning in Christianity; today we call it the 'religious' or 'Monastic' life. I'm not necessarily saying that's for everyone in today's world, but there is something to it to be sure. And Anarchist Communism draws a distinction between 'personal' and 'private' property as well.

    Anarchism doesn't mean; "no laws", that would be called 'Antinomianism'. 'Anarchism' means; 'No rulers' or 'no ruled'.

    God made men free, so as to freely love and be loved by His Creation. Man make Man a Slave.

    I would love to elaborate and surely will, but for now ill say that I think the trend of all true upward human development will be increasingly towards freedom, self-government, and yet greater co-operation and egalitarianism. The 'Declaration of Independence' and 'the Bill of Rights' are a great step in the right direction; but they are a beginning not an end in secular political development.

    I believe in the 'Second Amendment'. I believe in retaliatory personal and collective self-defense against enemies foreign and domestic, but I have no use for statist militaries, only a Militia or 'Defense Association' of armed individuals defending their communities.

    People aren't ready for Anarchist Communism, i'm not saying that. But the more they become free on that path that begins with Libertarianism, the more they will become ready. I feel that this position lies in the heart of every human being who comes into the world and is never fully stamped out by selfish evil and the love of power at the expense of our fellow men.

    I ask that the article I originally posted be read, it's a very thoughtful one.
    Last edited by Avvakum; January 28th, 2014 at 03:14.
    "God's an old hand at miracles, he brings us from nonexistence to life. And surely he will resurrect all human flesh on the last day in the twinkling of an eye. But who can comprehend this? For God is this: he creates the new and renews the old. Glory be to him in all things!" Archpriest Avvakum

  6. #6
    Senior Member Avvakum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    830
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: "Russian Orthodox Anarchism in the 21st Century" article on Russian Radio Statio

    Quote Originally Posted by American Patriot View Post
    Thank you for clearing that up.
    I assure you, you will find no truer an ally against all totalitarianisms as myself, nor do I advocate chaos, disorder, and libertinism. In fact, what I advocate will naturally, generally peacefully, and voluntarily tend to weed out all such elements and/or reform them.
    "God's an old hand at miracles, he brings us from nonexistence to life. And surely he will resurrect all human flesh on the last day in the twinkling of an eye. But who can comprehend this? For God is this: he creates the new and renews the old. Glory be to him in all things!" Archpriest Avvakum

  7. #7
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: "Russian Orthodox Anarchism in the 21st Century" article on Russian Radio Statio

    Modern forms of communism are based solely on Marxism. You know... Bolsheviks... Marx.... Lenin...

    There are those that claim or have claimed that early neolithic man, the hunter-gatherer types were "communist". There are those that claim early Christianity was "communist".

    That's all a load of horse shit and we all know it's horse shit.

    What I specifically showed you was a book definition of Christian anarchism - a "movement", a CULT. It's more neo-made-up-bullshit-crap.

    People LOVE to hide things, hide behind things, make things up - especially about others, and more than anything they like to be "mysterious".

    I'm a little tired of that kind of crap.

    In America... you're either a Constitutionalist, or you're the enemy - Period.

    If you apply the label "communist" to yourself, you're my enemy.

    if you try to claim arachism - you're the enemy.

    if you fall on the side of the Liberal media, big government or lying, hate mongering Democrat groups that believe in Marxism... you're the enemy.


    Period.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  8. #8
    Senior Member Avvakum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    830
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: "Russian Orthodox Anarchism in the 21st Century" article on Russian Radio Statio

    Quote Originally Posted by American Patriot View Post
    Modern forms of communism are based solely on Marxism. You know... Bolsheviks... Marx.... Lenin...

    There are those that claim or have claimed that early neolithic man, the hunter-gatherer types were "communist". There are those that claim early Christianity was "communist".

    That's all a load of horse shit and we all know it's horse shit.

    What I specifically showed you was a book definition of Christian anarchism - a "movement", a CULT. It's more neo-made-up-bullshit-crap.

    People LOVE to hide things, hide behind things, make things up - especially about others, and more than anything they like to be "mysterious".

    I'm a little tired of that kind of crap.

    In America... you're either a Constitutionalist, or you're the enemy - Period.

    If you apply the label "communist" to yourself, you're my enemy.

    if you try to claim arachism - you're the enemy.

    if you fall on the side of the Liberal media, big government or lying, hate mongering Democrat groups that believe in Marxism... you're the enemy.


    Period.
    Perhaps the term 'Christian Libertarian Communitarianist' or something like that would be more palatable, but I wonder. I am not responsible for the distortion or perversion of the meaning of words, just as some have perverted the words; 'democracy' or 'republic'. The same goes for 'communist' or 'anarchist' in my opinion and in the opinion of others. I despise statist-marxist 'communists'; they promise 'communism', but all people ever get is the 'temporary' Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Their liars, terrorists, murderers with the blood of millions on their unclean and unholy hands.

    Point is; I believe in absolute Freedom and Liberty, which I also believe will result in closer and closer collective communitarian ties. Is that so wrong? I even believe that others have the right-in freedom-to be wrong. So there is no violence and no coercion, no harm is done by my political ideal, which isn't the case with so many others out there.

    What you showed me was something out of a book, from where or of what political ideology who knows, which did indeed sound like made-up bullshit crap. 'Christian Anarchism' is an political ideology and has been around for some time, and it's merits or lack therof can be discussed rationally.
    "God's an old hand at miracles, he brings us from nonexistence to life. And surely he will resurrect all human flesh on the last day in the twinkling of an eye. But who can comprehend this? For God is this: he creates the new and renews the old. Glory be to him in all things!" Archpriest Avvakum

  9. #9
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: "Russian Orthodox Anarchism in the 21st Century" article on Russian Radio Statio

    No, you're not responsible for distortion, any more than I am responsible for the media distorting what Republics are supposed to stand for, or what the Tea Party actually IS - rather than the perception created by a bunch of lame brains who want us to believe something else.

    But, I'll point out I did pull that information from Wikipedia (not a book actually) and I don't believe half of what they say, and none of what they post online related to politics.

    However, I shall also point out that there's a hateful phrase out there that goes, "It is what it is..." (and I hate the phrase, but it's clear).

    Perception as we here have ALL come to learn is 99% of reality for almost everyone on the planet. In other words, words mean things and believe it or not the word "Communism" has NOT been bastardized, but rather proven beyond a shadow of doubt that it is a very bad, bad condition in which to place humans.

    Communism has been responsible for the deaths of millions of people since its inception.

    Marxism is the root of communism and whether you call it socialism or you call it "Liberalism" it's the same thing. An effort to destroy the capitalist society of the Western world.

    Anarchy is precisely that, by definition, anarchy. The complete and utter lawlessness of society. There are no rules, and those who make them are anathema to those desiring anarchy - and thus criminalized.

    Christianity has never taught anarchy. Ever. "Render unto Caesar" is the beginning of a phrase attributed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels, which reads in full, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". Even this is a form of government dictated by Jesus. Not anarchy. (In truth, this was about coinage, with Caesar's likeness, and not that of God's.... but I digress).

    When you label yourself in a way that is detrimental to your own reputation you have no one to blame but yourself; not those of us who use the title or phrase in some way (as it is meant).

    You are whatever you are.

    I am whatever I am.

    Ryan is himself, the rest are whomever they are.

    No one stands on ceremony or puts on airs.

    I personally HATE the "mysterious".

    Either you are something, or you ain't. Either you have a clear message (Whether we are prepared for it or not is irrelevant) to pass or you don't.

    Don't put on airs.
    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  10. #10
    Senior Member Avvakum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    830
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: "Russian Orthodox Anarchism in the 21st Century" article on Russian Radio Statio

    Quote Originally Posted by American Patriot View Post
    No, you're not responsible for distortion, any more than I am responsible for the media distorting what Republics are supposed to stand for, or what the Tea Party actually IS - rather than the perception created by a bunch of lame brains who want us to believe something else.

    But, I'll point out I did pull that information from Wikipedia (not a book actually) and I don't believe half of what they say, and none of what they post online related to politics.

    However, I shall also point out that there's a hateful phrase out there that goes, "It is what it is..." (and I hate the phrase, but it's clear).

    Perception as we here have ALL come to learn is 99% of reality for almost everyone on the planet. In other words, words mean things and believe it or not the word "Communism" has NOT been bastardized, but rather proven beyond a shadow of doubt that it is a very bad, bad condition in which to place humans.

    Communism has been responsible for the deaths of millions of people since its inception.

    Marxism is the root of communism and whether you call it socialism or you call it "Liberalism" it's the same thing. An effort to destroy the capitalist society of the Western world.

    Anarchy is precisely that, by definition, anarchy. The complete and utter lawlessness of society. There are no rules, and those who make them are anathema to those desiring anarchy - and thus criminalized.

    Christianity has never taught anarchy. Ever. "Render unto Caesar" is the beginning of a phrase attributed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels, which reads in full, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". Even this is a form of government dictated by Jesus. Not anarchy. (In truth, this was about coinage, with Caesar's likeness, and not that of God's.... but I digress).

    When you label yourself in a way that is detrimental to your own reputation you have no one to blame but yourself; not those of us who use the title or phrase in some way (as it is meant).

    You are whatever you are.

    I am whatever I am.

    Ryan is himself, the rest are whomever they are.

    No one stands on ceremony or puts on airs.

    I personally HATE the "mysterious".

    Either you are something, or you ain't. Either you have a clear message (Whether we are prepared for it or not is irrelevant) to pass or you don't.

    Don't put on airs.
    You write;

    "No, you're not responsible for distortion, any more than I am responsible for the media distorting what Republics are supposed to stand for, or what the Tea Party actually IS - rather than the perception created by a bunch of lame brains who want us to believe something else.
    "

    I agree, which is why when I decided to go back and have something of a political philosophy 'do-over', I wanted to have a political philosophy that best reflects my ideals in the world, which today are far from where they were say ten years ago even. I disregarded the present perceptions of various ideologies and examined them in what I hope has been an dispassionate and objective rational process.

    You also say;

    "But, I'll point out I did pull that information from Wikipedia (not a book actually) and I don't believe half of what they say, and none of what they post online related to politics.
    "

    I agree, which is why I didn't base my judgements on wikipedia.

    You continue;


    "However, I shall also point out that there's a hateful phrase out there that goes, "It is what it is..." (and I hate the phrase, but it's clear).
    "

    Lol, but i'm far from sure that phrase applies here; that has yet to be shown.

    Furthermore, when you say that;

    "Perception as we here have ALL come to learn is 99% of reality for almost everyone on the planet. In other words, words mean things and believe it or not the word "Communism" has NOT been bastardized, but rather proven beyond a shadow of doubt that it is a very bad, bad condition in which to place humans."

    I agree only to a point. the Word 'Communism' describes the state of existence that the Marxists CLAIM to want to bring Humanity into, but 'only' that after the Revolution we all must endure SOCIALISM under the 'temporary' Dictatorship of the Proletariat. In other words, they lie. What I want is that 'end state' of existence, but without the Revolution, Socialism, or the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'. In other words; REAL Communism. But I don't want to quibble over words; after all, I might as well call it 'Utopia' instead, for Humanity isn't prepared for It yet.

    You say;

    "Communism has been responsible for the deaths of millions of people since its inception.

    Marxism is the root of communism and whether you call it socialism or you call it "Liberalism" it's the same thing. An effort to destroy the capitalist society of the Western world.
    "

    Again, if you were to call it all 'Marxism' instead, I would agree, for reasons I already mention, or I could just call my Communism; 'Communitarianism' or some such neologism. The Marxists are Revolutionaries who want to overthrow the present order, usually violently. I want the present Order to evolve into the society I and others propose, but to do violence and to lie and engage in Statism will never bring it about. I oppose Capitalism and what truly amounts to the 'State Capitalism' of the Marxists, but i'm confident that Capitalism will collapse all on it's own without anyone being able to attack or defend it successfully-the coming Scarcity will end the economic assumptions of a resource Cornucopia which both Capitalism and Socialism rest upon.

    You say;


    "Anarchy is precisely that, by definition, anarchy. The complete and utter lawlessness of society. There are no rules, and those who make them are anathema to those desiring anarchy - and thus criminalized.
    "

    And in this you are unfortunately mistaken i'm afraid. "Anarchy" literally means in the original Greek; no Rule, because "Archon" means Ruler, not that there aren't any rules or laws in a Anarchist Society, but that no Ruler generates those rules or laws. Anarchy means freedom and self-government; YOU are your Ruler, with a concience implanted within you as the voice of the Creator Who made you. Free, you would freely enter into compacts with others or withdraw from them. Likewise, in an Anarchist society as I and others envision, others would be free to associate or dis-associate with you as they see fit. Many Anarchists don't believe in violence, and I oppose those who do believe in violence. Violence comes from the love of power over our fellow man, to make the free unfree, that gives rise to the State and all involuntary Hierarchy.

    You say;

    "Christianity has never taught anarchy. Ever. "Render unto Caesar" is the beginning of a phrase attributed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels, which reads in full, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". Even this is a form of government dictated by Jesus. Not anarchy. (In truth, this was about coinage, with Caesar's likeness, and not that of God's.... but I digress).
    "

    I can show you many examples that illustrate that Christianity is EXACTLY real Anarchism, and 'Render unto Caesar' is exactly that; give Caesar what is his, his coin, and God is to be given all, since all is His. furthermore, giving Caesar what is his means to not resist his coercive power with counter-coercive attempts of one's own, but to bear what Caesar commands except in matters of faith and morality where Caesar's command would be in essence to reject God...

    You say;

    "When you label yourself in a way that is detrimental to your own reputation you have no one to blame but yourself; not those of us who use the title or phrase in some way (as it is meant).
    "

    'Republican' or 'Christian' have both been considered 'detremental to your own reputation' labels in some circles; one can carry respect for others opinions too far, one has to draw a line somewhere. I you can educate and tell the truth about a label that is under predjudice by many other people, aren't you then doing a positive good? Nonetheless, I did earlier state that other words that mean in effect the same could be used that apparently wouldn't be detremental, as you say. Still, there comes a point at which the CONTENT and not the Label is what's really at issue; quibbling over words obscures this.

    You say;


    "You are whatever you are.

    I am whatever I am.

    Ryan is himself, the rest are whomever they are.
    "

    Presumably. However, people do change over time; I have a great many flaws and issues myself, but one thing is true; I now reject what was in effect the love of and worship of Power that embodies so much of modern life in many subtle and un-subtle ways. I suspect that you and the others here are all lovers of Liberty here on this Forum, but I was not always that way.

    You say;

    "No one stands on ceremony or puts on airs.
    "

    Maybe not here or some places elsewhere, but those who love power and the holding of power or the appearence of such? 'Standing on ceremony' and 'putting on airs' is what gets them off and yokes them to Statist and other coercive relationships vis-a-vis their fellow human beings.

    Than you say;

    "I personally HATE the "mysterious"."

    Me too! But life has tought me that I do not know nor ever will have all the answers, even though l suspect like you i'll keep on trying to know everything I can anyway. The more and more I know, the less and less I really know.

    You state;

    "Either you are something, or you ain't.
    "

    Right, and I told you what I am, but you pinned bad connotations onto the terms I used, albeit connotations that are commonly misapplied by many to those words.

    You state;

    "And Either you have a clear message (Whether we are prepared for it or not is irrelevant) to pass or you don't. "


    I have a clear message truly; but it's not a simple or easy one, big difference. Man innately loves freedom and desires the close company of others, but because of certain flaws Man also has come to fear Freedom and his fellows to greater or lesser degrees. From that fear stems the desire to control or destroy what we fear, and selfishness which makes the Other practically nonexistent in one's eyes and exalts individual desires. Thus some men create the State and other coercive structures modelled on It to exert power over others. Freedom and Community in the fullest sense can only come with time and the final disaster of these coercive structures; so no, we are not ready.

    Only with the Minarchist State as discribed in the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights do we even come close to being on that path, as I see it.

    And finally;

    "Don't put on airs.
    "

    I don't, wouldn't even think of it. I just say what I think and feel about the world. The last thing I want is to come off as arrogant; i'm too much a sinner to think that I don't need a dose of humility.
    Last edited by Avvakum; January 29th, 2014 at 01:53.
    "God's an old hand at miracles, he brings us from nonexistence to life. And surely he will resurrect all human flesh on the last day in the twinkling of an eye. But who can comprehend this? For God is this: he creates the new and renews the old. Glory be to him in all things!" Archpriest Avvakum

  11. #11
    Expatriate American Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A Banana Republic, Central America
    Posts
    48,597
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts

    Default Re: "Russian Orthodox Anarchism in the 21st Century" article on Russian Radio Statio

    "Anarchy is precisely that, by definition, anarchy. The complete and utter lawlessness of society. There are no rules, and those who make them are anathema to those desiring anarchy - and thus criminalized."

    And in this you are unfortunately mistaken i'm afraid. "Anarchy" literally means in the original Greek; no Rule, because "Archon" means Ruler, not that there aren't any rules or laws in a Anarchist Society, but that no Ruler generates those rules or laws. Anarchy means freedom and self-government; YOU are your Ruler, with a concience implanted within you as the voice of the Creator Who made you. Free, you would freely enter into compacts with others or withdraw from them. Likewise, in an Anarchist society as I and others envision, others would be free to associate or dis-associate with you as they see fit. Many Anarchists don't believe in violence, and I oppose those who do believe in violence. Violence comes from the love of power over our fellow man, to make the free unfree, that gives rise to the State and all involuntary Hierarchy.
    Ummm nope. Now your playing semantics games.

    "Lawlessness" = "no Rule"

    Sorry same thing.

    "No one stands on ceremony or puts on airs."

    Maybe not here or some places elsewhere, but those who love power and the holding of power or the appearence of such? 'Standing on ceremony' and 'putting on airs' is what gets them off and yokes them to Statist and other coercive relationships vis-a-vis their fellow human beings.
    "other places" don't count. We means us here. And people who put on airs, or hide and pretend mystery are fake people. Liberals are fakes. Communists and Marxists are fakes, and liars. Period.

    Only with the Minarchist State as discribed in the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights do we even come close to being on that path, as I see it.
    Exactly. And it does NOT require that anarchy, or an installation of "communism" or any other reconciliation of the word to make it happen. It merely requires that those who are elected as leaders FALL INTO LINE with the Constitution - which they are, BY LAW, required to do.

    When the Congress doesn't check the President, or the Court doesn't check Congress or the laws and the president exceeds his authority BASED on the Consitution - then the system has broken and it is time for the PEOPLE to step up and do something.

    That time has come - but not yet gone. Something big, dangerous and wonderful will happen. Soon.


    Here's the definition of anarchy:

    an·ar·chy
    ˈanərkē/

    noun
    noun: anarchy

    1.
    a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
    "he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"


    synonyms: lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil

    "conditions are dangerously ripe for anarchy"


    Libertatem Prius!


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




  12. #12
    Senior Member Avvakum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    830
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: "Russian Orthodox Anarchism in the 21st Century" article on Russian Radio Statio

    Quote Originally Posted by American Patriot View Post
    Ummm nope. Now your playing semantics games.

    "Lawlessness" = "no Rule"

    Sorry same thing.



    "other places" don't count. We means us here. And people who put on airs, or hide and pretend mystery are fake people. Liberals are fakes. Communists and Marxists are fakes, and liars. Period.



    Exactly. And it does NOT require that anarchy, or an installation of "communism" or any other reconciliation of the word to make it happen. It merely requires that those who are elected as leaders FALL INTO LINE with the Constitution - which they are, BY LAW, required to do.

    When the Congress doesn't check the President, or the Court doesn't check Congress or the laws and the president exceeds his authority BASED on the Consitution - then the system has broken and it is time for the PEOPLE to step up and do something.

    That time has come - but not yet gone. Something big, dangerous and wonderful will happen. Soon.


    Here's the definition of anarchy:

    an·ar·chy
    ˈanərkē/

    noun
    noun: anarchy

    1.
    a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
    "he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"


    synonyms: lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil

    "conditions are dangerously ripe for anarchy"
    I'd like to begin with a quote from American poet and thinker Henry David Thoreau, which sums up a good deal of my increasingly simplistic politics;

    "I heartily accept the motto,—"That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe,—"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have".



    'Anarchy' is a neologism from the greek language, from the Wikipedia article on 'Anarchy';
    Etymology

    The word anarchy comes from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία, anarchia, from ἀν an, "not, without" + ἀρχός arkhos, "ruler", meaning "absence of a ruler", "without rulers").[8]

    You say;

    ""other places" don't count. We means us here. And people who put on airs, or hide and pretend mystery are fake people. Liberals are fakes. Communists and Marxists are fakes, and liars. Period.
    "

    Not sure I disagree with you with any of that but i'm not sure what your point is; my point was that I'm not a Statist and that Statists tend to either want power or idolize those who do and think that these people can solve their problems for them. One Ruler or Many, the belief that such rulers can take the power and the responsibility for collective or individual actions away from the people and run their lives for them is a mistaken one. I don't have nor do I want power, nor do I have any support for anyone individually or collectively who does, so I have nothing to hide or be fake or put on airs about. Period.

    You said further;


    "Exactly. And it does NOT require that anarchy, or an installation of "communism" or any other reconciliation of the word to make it happen. It merely requires that those who are elected as leaders FALL INTO LINE with the Constitution - which they are, BY LAW, required to do.
    "

    As I said, the condition of total liberty and total community has not come; It in my opinion can only arise from our political system which is a Minarchist one; btw; I'm a big proponent of Nullification under the Constitutional penumbra of the 9th and 10th Amendments. With Immanueal Kant, I'd say that there are only four types of government;

    A. Law and freedom without force (anarchy).

    B. Law and force without freedom (despotism).
    C. Force without freedom and law (barbarism).

    D. Force with freedom and law (republic).

    By default, I know that most people are at best fitted for "D", but I'm striving for "A", because I've changed my former view of human nature, it's possible for me to pray for this to happen.

    You then say;


    "When the Congress doesn't check the President, or the Court doesn't check Congress or the laws and the president exceeds his authority BASED on the Consitution - then the system has broken and it is time for the PEOPLE to step up and do something.

    That time has come - but not yet gone. Something big, dangerous and wonderful will happen. Soon.
    "

    I agree, and I think you'll find that I'm one of those who's on the side of the 'good guys'. I'm not a 'Communist' in the Statist Marxist sense, but an Christian 'Anarcho-Communist', believing in total Liberty, no Ruler but God. And also in the end stage that the false left lies about; a type of egalitarian society with no state, no private property only personal property, and no social classes. A society in which all private property is owned by the community as a whole, and all people enjoy equal social and economic status. I may want socialism or communism of a sort, but only without violence, without force or fraud, then it doesn't work and defeats the very ends for which so many have dreamed of; it's a perversion of that dream. To quote Bakunin;

    "We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 269]
    Last edited by Avvakum; February 1st, 2014 at 03:46.
    "God's an old hand at miracles, he brings us from nonexistence to life. And surely he will resurrect all human flesh on the last day in the twinkling of an eye. But who can comprehend this? For God is this: he creates the new and renews the old. Glory be to him in all things!" Archpriest Avvakum

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 25th, 2013, 00:17
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 19th, 2013, 16:03
  3. Make Me Smarter: "HD" Radio
    By Brykovian in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: June 11th, 2012, 20:23
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 21st, 2011, 18:28
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2006, 04:37

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •