Pope: Communism plagiarized from Christianity

[Hexen]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/29/us-pope-communism-idINKBN0F40L020140629


He was asked about a blog post in the Economist magazine that said he sounded like a Leninist when he criticized capitalism and called for radical economic reform.

"I can only say that the communists have stolen our flag. The flag of the poor is Christian. Poverty is at the center of the Gospel," he said, citing Biblical passages about the need to help the poor, the sick and the needy.


"Communists say that all this is communism. Sure, twenty centuries later. So when they speak, one can say to them: 'but then you are Christian'," he said, laughing.
Since his election in March 2013, Francis has often attacked the global economic system as being insensitive to the poor and not doing enough to share wealth with those who need it most.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Because of course Christianity calls for the socialisation of the means of production. Although to be honest the pontiff has something resembling a point in that many ostensible "socialists" are paternalistic liberals with no materialist analysis, which does place their views quite close to those of Christians.

[Alexios]

He's not entirely off the mark. St. Francis of Assisi was basically a proto-communist.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

He's not entirely off the mark. St. Francis of Assisi was basically a proto-communist.

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but when did Francis ever address the relations of production, etc.? To the best of my knowledge - and I actually have read a bit of Franciscan theology - he hadn't, so calling him a proto-communist because he sometimes advocated communal consumption in certain situations is like calling Lycurgus or Plato proto-communists.

[Creative Destruction]

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but when did Francis ever address the relations of production, etc.? To the best of my knowledge - and I actually have read a bit of Franciscan theology - he hadn't, so calling him a proto-communist because he sometimes advocated communal consumption in certain situations is like calling Lycurgus or Plato proto-communists.

well, "proto-" usually indicates that they didn't really put forward the entire thought, just helped contributed to it in a general sense. for example, "proto-punk" bands aren't punk, but they, in some way or another, contributed to what would eventually become punk, either through ideas, sounds or aesthetics.

Francis didn't advocate the socialization of the means of production, but he did advocate other things that we would come to understand as being communist. if Plato and Lycurgus did this, as well, then i wouldn't find any problem in calling them "proto-communists". if Francis did advocate that, then he would have been the first communists rather than someone who had ideas that became later associated with the movement.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

well, "proto-" usually indicates that they didn't really put forward the entire thought, just helped contributed to it in a general sense. for example, "proto-punk" bands aren't punk, but they, in some way or another, contributed to what would eventually become punk, either through ideas, sounds or aesthetics.

Francis didn't advocate the socialization of the means of production, but he did advocate other things that we would come to understand as being communist. if Plato and Lycurgus did this, as well, then i wouldn't find any problem in calling them "proto-communists". if Francis did advocate that, then he would have been the first communists rather than someone who had ideas that became later associated with the movement.

The point was that none of the things Francis advocated were specifically communist, and that none of them would eventually develop into properly communist positions. Communal consumption is not communism - indeed it is often found in slave-owning and Asiatic-despotic societies. To quote Draper:

"Plutarch’s life of Lycurgus led the early socialists to adopt him as the founder of Spartan “communism” – this is why Kautsky lists him. But as described by Plutarch, the Spartan system was based on equal division of land under private ownership; it was in no way socialistic. The “collectivist” feeling one may get from a description of the Spartan regime comes from a different direction: the way of life of the Spartan ruling class itself, which was organized as a permanent disciplined garrison in a state of siege; and to this add the terroristic regime imposed over the helots (slaves). I do not see how a modern socialist can read of the Lycurgan regime without feeling that he is meeting not an ancestor of socialism but a forerunner of fascism. There is quite a difference! But how is it that it did not impress itself on the leading theoretician of social-democracy?"

Later he states that, concerning Pythagoras, even if his order did practice communal consumption, that would make them "as communist as any monastery". Well, yes, precisely. Monasteries have communal consumption but are not communist. And Francis was inspired by the monastic life, not a notion of a classless society. Not to mention that he accepted the standard mediaeval worldview with its endless hierarchies, particularly gender-based bigotry and so on.

[Skyhilist]

"Don't let your hearts be troubled. Trust in Marx and the proletarian revolution, and trust also in me." -Jesus (John 14:1)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

"Now in those days Judas, who was in the CWI, did claim that the periodic crises of capitalism were due to underconsumption.

And Jesus spake: 'Verily I say to thee, wherefore this Keynesian bullshit?

For is it not written that it is more likely for the camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for capitalism to escape periodic crises due to the overproduction?'

And they heard, and believed in the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and were saved.

(Except Judas who was, however, expelled from the CWI branch in Palestine due to unrelated circumstances later.)"

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Can I just say for the record I fucking love this pope?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I'm sure the pr department at the Vatican is glad to hear it vox

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I mean, he's just a bit of a misogynist, homophobe, transphobe and patronising paternalist, what's not to like?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I mean, he's just a bit of a misogynist, homophobe, transphobe and patronising paternalist, what's not to like?

Ooooooh now how is he any of those? Everytime I read something he's said it's been hilarious and genuinely progressive, anti-capital, anti-rich folk and so on.


I'm sure the pr department at the Vatican is glad to hear it vox

I bet they are. ^-*

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Here's the thing.

Yeah, the pope is saying a lot of awesome shit. But, what exactly has he done?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Ooooooh now how is he any of those? Everytime I read something he's said it's been hilarious and genuinely progressive, anti-capital, anti-rich folk and so on.

We're talking about the head of the Catholic Church, whose teachings are all of the things I've listed (considering homosexuality a mortal sin for example). And the current grand poobah has not only failed to make any adjustments to that, but has confirmed the Church doctrine in every instance. As for his "genuinely progressive" statements, some noise about how the poor deserve to be better treatment is irritating liberal paternalism. Socialists don't want the rich to treat the poor better, we want to kill the rich and take all of their factories.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

The last two popes have gone on "anti-capitalist" rants about inequality as well. This pope is literally a PR campaign that takes the form of a human. The church is done for unless it can attract some young blood and quick, which is what these statements exist for.

[Alexios]

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but when did Francis ever address the relations of production, etc.? To the best of my knowledge - and I actually have read a bit of Franciscan theology - he hadn't, so calling him a proto-communist because he sometimes advocated communal consumption in certain situations is like calling Lycurgus or Plato proto-communists.

I said proto-communist for a reason; there was no global capitalist system for him to criticize, but he did speak out against the reduction of things to their exchange values, serfdom and wage slavery, gender discrimination, and religious violence. The society in which he lived was rapidly becoming capitalist, something obvious to anyone who's studied the time period.


The last two popes have gone on "anti-capitalist" rants about inequality as well. This pope is literally a PR campaign that takes the form of a human. The church is done for unless it can attract some young blood and quick, which is what these statements exist for.

The church isn't "done for." It never will be; it's the single largest Christian denomination in the world and has hundreds of millions of people in every corner of the world. There's not really any evidence to suggest that this is a "PR campaign" unless you want to rule out individual ambition altogether and view everything like a corporation. Not that Marxists don't already do that.

[Dave B]

On plagiarism, it is actually the Pope that is plagiarising Marxism in saying that early Christianity was communistic;

Karl Kautsky

Foundations of Christianity; Book Four: The Beginnings of Christianity

I. The Primitive Christian Community

The Proletarian Character of the Community


The first Christians were not capable of going into such clear and calm details. But their brief remarks, appeals, demands, wishes, all point to the same communistic character of the beginning of the Christian community.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/ch09.htm

An idea that produced apoplexy amongst the early 20th century Christians then; as it still does now.

I mean it shouldn’t be all that hard really; just read the original story and what was said and happened etc.

A poor ‘working class carpenter’ appeared in a colony of an imperial empire and started criticising the rich and the hypocrisy of the local ‘manufacturing consent’ organised state religion that collaborated with it.

After gaining popularity with the poor and disenfranchised population, and a bit of ‘Occupy Wall Street’ anti money changers demonstration, he was stitched up and ‘crucified’.

What did these early Christians think or do about it then;

Acts 4;32




The group of those who believed were of one heart and mind, and no one said that any of his possessions was his own, but everything was held in common ………….. For there was no one needy among them………The proceeds were distributed to each, as anyone had need.

And who was interested?

According to an early ruling class critic of Christianity, Celsum, writing sometime before 220AD.


………low individuals, and persons devoid of perception, and slaves, and women, and children………



Well they would be wouldn’t they?

Celsum also attacks these early Christians and presumably the ‘vanguard’ of these ‘low individuals’ for refusing to;




"…….take office in the government of the country..[as]…is required for the maintenance of the laws and the support of religion."



Origen the anrcho-syndicalist Christian responds that they have their own;


‘national organization’

Administered by those who;





‘…….are not easily induced to take a public charge….’



As;


‘Those who are ambitious of ruling we reject…..’


The breathtaking Christian revisionism doesn’t stop or even start at the rich going through the eyes of needles and Wall Street doing God’s work.

Wealth and state power is the gift of the devil. Luke 4;


5 Then the devil led him up to a high place and showed him in a flash all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And he said to him, “To you I will grant this whole realm—and the glory that goes along with it, for it has been relinquished to me, and I can give it to anyone I wish.



Faced up with this kind of shit these very early proletarian Christians would have been one kind of escapist utopian communists if they thought they thought they could get ‘salvation from bondage and misery’ materially.

Like the Shakers, Whinstanley’s levellers or Cabet’s Icarians.


So they choose another.

As Engels put it;


The history of early Christianity has notable points of resemblance with the modern working-class movement. Like the latter, Christianity was originally a movement of oppressed people: it first appeared as the religion of slaves and emancipated slaves, of poor people deprived of all rights, of peoples subjugated or dispersed by Rome. Both Christianity and the workers' socialism preach forthcoming salvation from bondage and misery; Christianity places this salvation in a life beyond, after death, in heaven; socialism places it in this world, in a transformation of society.


But again it is ‘form and content’ or ‘content and form’.

The trans-historical content is class war or conflict between ‘low individuals’ and the ruling class; the form in which it expresses itself ,‘changes’.

[Futility Personified]

If living according to the doctrines of the church worked so well for everyone, communists wouldn't need to exist, would they?

Last thing I heard this pope say was, in the face of a possible shift in attitudes towards drug consumption, that.... drugs are bad, m'kay?

[Thirsty Crow]

The flag of the poor is the Christian flag.

What this means is the Church advocates relief for the poor. Somehow then the good pope get's all riled up cause there's this current of thought and action his public outreach is being likened to (without any good basis, to be sure) and he can't afford himself not to claim some kind of superiority.

Thus the good pope thinks of a brilliant idea - hey, those commies say they're on the side of the poor, but so did the church and more than hundreds and hundreds of years ago.

Need I go on?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I said proto-communist for a reason; there was no global capitalist system for him to criticize, but he did speak out against the reduction of things to their exchange values, serfdom and wage slavery, gender discrimination, and religious violence. The society in which he lived was rapidly becoming capitalist, something obvious to anyone who's studied the time period.

"Speaking out against the reduction of things to their exchange-values" (what else could they be reduced to in the capitalist mode of production?) has nothing to do with communism, though. Communists oppose, at this point in social development, capitalism as a mode of production, not because of the cash nexus, but because it is no longer able to develop the forces of production for the satisfaction of human needs. In particular we do not oppose capitalism from the standpoint of previous social forms, as Francis did.

His "opposition to religious violence" involved one, probably apocryphal, attempt to convert sultan al-Kamil. That doesn't exactly scream "opposition to religious violence" to me.

As for his "opposition to gender discrimination", are you joking? Francis accepted the standard Catholic doctrine, which was and remains deeply misogynist.

You honestly sound like a Catholic apologist.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

(I can't edit my post for some reason.)

And let's not forget that the "proto-communist" Francis, allegedly opposed to religious violence and gender discrimination, appointed as the cardinal-protector of his order a prelate that would later organise the papal Inquisition, in which the Franciscan order would play a major part.

[Alexios]

"Speaking out against the reduction of things to their exchange-values" (what else could they be reduced to in the capitalist mode of production?) has nothing to do with communism, though. Communists oppose, at this point in social development, capitalism as a mode of production, not because of the cash nexus, but because it is no longer able to develop the forces of production for the satisfaction of human needs. In particular we do not oppose capitalism from the standpoint of previous social forms, as Francis did.

His "opposition to religious violence" involved one, probably apocryphal, attempt to convert sultan al-Kamil. That doesn't exactly scream "opposition to religious violence" to me.

As for his "opposition to gender discrimination", are you joking? Francis accepted the standard Catholic doctrine, which was and remains deeply misogynist.

You honestly sound like a Catholic apologist.

And let's not forget that the "proto-communist" Francis, allegedly opposed to religious violence and gender discrimination, appointed as the cardinal-protector of his order a prelate that would later organise the papal Inquisition, in which the Franciscan order would play a major part.


It's pretty obvious now that you have no idea what you're talking about (but most of the time you don't - you just pretend you do). Look at the primary sources or read Andre Vauchez's biography and you'll realize that you're full of shit on this one. It might be a good learning experience.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It's pretty obvious now that you have no idea what you're talking about (but most of the time you don't - you just pretend you do). Look at the primary sources or read Andre Vauchez's biography and you'll realize that you're full of shit on this one. It might be a good learning experience.

I don't usually use emoticons but :rolleyes:. If you want to say something, say it. If you want to claim something I've said is incorrect, well, the very least you can do is say what it was. I don't know, maybe being insufferable takes a lot of energy so you can't actually argue or something.

[Alexios]

I don't usually use emoticons but :rolleyes:. If you want to say something, say it. If you want to claim something I've said is incorrect, well, the very least you can do is say what it was. I don't know, maybe being insufferable takes a lot of energy so you can't actually argue or something.

I'm not your babysitter. If you want to make a claim, then try doing the research beforehand. And for the record, I was willing to respond respectfully until you pulled that "Catholic Apologist" bullshit.

The truth is that nothing I've said lacks evidence in the sources, and professional historians agree with me that St. Francis was radical for his time and held ideas that could be considered proto-communist. Your post above about the Inquisition shows that you know nothing about the subject matter, since Francis famously lost control over the Friars Minor and came to be viewed as an idealist by his followers. Holding him responsible for what the Friars did after his death is ridiculous. Andre Vauchez discusses this in great length; read his book if you want more information.

[cyu]

I doubt his intended audience is actually communists.

I would say there are two major groups of people who do take his statements seriously: (1) People interested in Catholicism / Christianity (2) People who want to remove him as Pope.

For group 2, the typical play goes like this:

1. What you are saying amounts to Marxism
2. Marx was an atheist
3. You are an atheist
4. We should remove you as Pope

I see this move as a fairly astute move to head off group 2. Personally I see some co-evolution between Christianity and Communism - like dolphins and sharks might both have fins. However, what I would really say about Christianity is that capitalists have stolen the flag of Christianity and have planted it firmly in the capitalist camp - this pope is just trying to take it back. There are a lot of entrenched pro-capitalist interests in modern Christianity though (capitalists have basically tried to infiltrate every school of thought - including many "socialist" parties that manage to win elections), so he has to tread carefully.

[Halert]

The idea that communism took from Christianity is partly based on the following bible verse acts 2:44-45. Here is the one the first communities of Christians described.

"44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."

As many of us know a commune is not communism. the idea that communism took from the bible is mostly based on a misunderstand of what communism is.

[Slavic]

A Communist?
No.

Emphasizing the fact that early Christianity was all about taking care of the vulnerable.
Yes.


And lol at the Economist saying that the Pope is a "Leninist". Who knew the Pope was all about the vanguard.

[Halert]

And lol at the Economist saying that the Pope is a "Leninist". Who knew the Pope was all about the vanguard.

The curia is the vangaurd, don't you see! :laugh::laugh:

[Prometeo liberado]

Please people. Franky is nothing more than an overblown CEO of an outdated, antiquated product that has little to no function in the industrialized world so he's taking his collection of superstitions mixed with the same old populism and repackaging it. Anyone remember "New Coke"? A failure only to be repacked as "Classic Coke". All the same shite. How long ago was it that John Paul got off a plane in Nicaragua and chastised his priests for helping topple the despotic regime? And don't get me started on Benny who's still walks the hallways at all hours of the night screaming "heretic!!" Same corporation, new leader. It's akin to the Nazis losing yet retaining most of it's generals, all of it's doctrines, most of it's soldiers and of course the same uniforms yet scream for justice for the poor.
How soon wee forget.

[Црвена]

The GOP are going to love this.

I would agree that a lot of the things Jesus and his followers practiced and advocated in the early days of Christianity were communist, and don't think that Jesus actually wanted to discriminate against certain types of people - that was a belief added to Christianity during feudalism when, like any ruling class, the Christian leaders wanted to stay in power and divert the attention of the masses. But Jesus' communism was primitive communism, the first stage of historical materialism rather than the final stage, so not the type of classless and collectivist society we are advocating.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I'm sure a lot of Guardian readers will stroke their chins, nod and share this with their chums over a latte - 'You know, this Pope is really a breath of fresh air, yar. he's got a point you know, I mean, there's no greater Socialist than Jesus, you know?'

So yeah, the uber-patriach of a very wealthy, regressive, pervasive international racket of child abusers and gay bashers thinks the communists are taking a leaf out of his crowd's good book...the good book that has stood for oppression, state power, genocide and much more for centuries. Excellent analysis Franny, I can see why they like ya so much.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I'm not your babysitter. If you want to make a claim, then try doing the research beforehand. And for the record, I was willing to respond respectfully until you pulled that "Catholic Apologist" bullshit.

The truth is that nothing I've said lacks evidence in the sources, and professional historians agree with me that St. Francis was radical for his time and held ideas that could be considered proto-communist. Your post above about the Inquisition shows that you know nothing about the subject matter, since Francis famously lost control over the Friars Minor and came to be viewed as an idealist by his followers. Holding him responsible for what the Friars did after his death is ridiculous. Andre Vauchez discusses this in great length; read his book if you want more information.

Hah no you're definitely coming off as a catholic apologist. This site attracts some strange revolutionaries

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm not your babysitter. If you want to make a claim, then try doing the research beforehand. And for the record, I was willing to respond respectfully until you pulled that "Catholic Apologist" bullshit.

The truth is that nothing I've said lacks evidence in the sources, and professional historians agree with me that St. Francis was radical for his time and held ideas that could be considered proto-communist. Your post above about the Inquisition shows that you know nothing about the subject matter, since Francis famously lost control over the Friars Minor and came to be viewed as an idealist by his followers. Holding him responsible for what the Friars did after his death is ridiculous. Andre Vauchez discusses this in great length; read his book if you want more information.

If you don't want to be called an apologist for Catholicism, then don't praise someone who upheld the Church's misogynist teaching for "speaking out against gender discrimination" and don't imply that reactionary railing against "reducing things to their exchange-values" has anything to do with communism.

And if you had bothered to read the "post... about the Inquisition", you would have noticed that I'm talking about something - the appointment of U. Conti as cardinal-protector of the Franciscan order - that happened while Francis was alive and by Francis's explicit desire.

And sure, bourgeois historians might have called Francis proto-communist. That's because they have no real understanding of what communism is, just as Taine considered Sparta and Rome to be proto-socialist.

[Alexios]

Hah no you're definitely coming off as a catholic apologist. This site attracts some strange revolutionaries

Apparently it's okay for people to talk about the proto-communist nature of the Jacobins (who were all racists and misogynists), but the minute you go before the year 1500 then we have to pull the wool over our eyes and pretend everything is too vile and reactionary to discuss. And there are also Catholic communists, both on and off this site, who seem to be dedicated Marxists regardless of their religion. But I guess they're OK so long as they check in with the Ministry of Truth before discussing taboo topics.


If you don't want to be called an apologist for Catholicism, then don't praise someone who upheld the Church's misogynist teaching for "speaking out against gender discrimination" and don't imply that reactionary railing against "reducing things to their exchange-values" has anything to do with communism.

Holy shit, are you really this dense? Pointing out a well-established historical fact counts as "praise" now? I don't admire much of anything about St. Francis, but I happen to know a fair deal about his history and I'm not afraid to point it out, even if it makes me come off as an "apologist" to the morons on this forum.

I also have to point out how hilarious all of this is coming from a Trotskyist. "Damn guys, how can you support Trotsky? Didn't you know that he helped organize a state that would go on to murder hundreds of thousands of workers?"


And if you had bothered to read the "post... about the Inquisition", you would have noticed that I'm talking about something - the appointment of U. Conti as cardinal-protector of the Franciscan order - that happened while Francis was alive and by Francis's explicit desire.I've already addressed this, and I'll address it the same way as before. By the time the Franciscans had grown to be the largest order in Italy and were participating in the inquisitions, Francis had been largely abandoned the order for his idealism. This is an image well known even to people not well-versed in the history of the period, so it's very telling that you don't even know this. You've also already brought up the topic of the meeting with the Sultan, but absurdly you see this as contrary to my point. In reality, it was a gesture of nonviolence - Francis was opposed to the Crusade and sought to end it through persuasion.

And in any case, isn't it a bit ridiculous to blame someone for the actions of an appointee? That would be like casting blame on Lenin for the purges and famines just because he appointed Stalin General Secretary. But I'm sure you'll think of a million excuses for that, and I won't be allowed to call you a Stalin apologist.


And sure, bourgeois historians might have called Francis proto-communist. That's because they have no real understanding of what communism is, just as Taine considered Sparta and Rome to be proto-socialist.Oh great, the old "bourgeois historian" card. Give me a fucking break. There's really nothing more sad than writing off decades of serious historical study as being "bourgeois." What an absolutely ridiculous and naive way to approach scholarship. What, are you telling me that you only read Eric Hobsbawm and J. Arch Getty? "Marxist" historians are no better than "bourgeois" historians, and I would love to see you prove otherwise.

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that Marxists in the past have been willing to discuss communism in relation to Christianity, as Dave B points out above. I don't know whether it's your Spartacist edginess or just plain ignorance that keeps you from acknowledging these things.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Apparently it's okay for people to talk about the proto-communist nature of the Jacobins (who were all racists and misogynists), but the minute you go before the year 1500 then we have to pull the wool over our eyes and pretend everything is too vile and reactionary to discuss. And there are also Catholic communists, both on and off this site, who seem to be dedicated Marxists regardless of their religion. But I guess they're OK so long as they check in with the Ministry of Truth before discussing taboo topics.

Oh, and what might those "taboo topics" be? Because you're starting to sound more and more right-wing.

And to be honest, anyone who thinks the Jacobins were proto-communist needs to take a good hard look at what they're saying as well. The Jacobins were radical liberals. Babeuf's group, which claimed a connection to the Jacobin movement, was proto-communist, though.

Now, unfortunately, communists can and have been misogynists and racists - although in most cases this places their consistency in serious doubt. I never said "Francis can't have been a proto-communist because he was a misogynist", I am merely noting how ridiculous it is to claim that Francis was opposed to gender discrimination.


Holy shit, are you really this dense? Pointing out a well-established historical fact counts as "praise" now? I don't admire much of anything about St. Francis, but I happen to know a fair deal about his history and I'm not afraid to point it out, even if it makes me come off as an "apologist" to the morons on this forum.

Note that this "well-established historical fact" is so "well-established" that our dear Alexios can't cite any of the sources. Because that would be "doing my homework". Right. In serious debate (and yes, a debate remains serious even if someone hurts your fragile feelings by pointing out how worrying your statements sound) people are expected to back their points up if asked to do so.


I also have to point out how hilarious all of this is coming from a Trotskyist. "Damn guys, how can you support Trotsky? Didn't you know that he helped organize a state that would go on to murder hundreds of thousands of workers?"

Yeah, and if you think that was a bad thing, you probably have no business calling yourself a Trotskyist - that is a lesson some of the liberals posing as Trotskyists need to learn. Now, are you saying that the conduct of the mediaeval Church was not reprehensible?


I've already addressed this, and I'll address it the same way as before. By the time the Franciscans had grown to be the largest order in Italy and were participating in the inquisitions, Francis had been largely abandoned the order for his idealism. This is an image well known even to people not well-versed in the history of the period, so it's very telling that you don't even know this.

Which is irrelevant as long as we're discussing his actions while he was alive and very much in control of the order.


And in any case, isn't it a bit ridiculous to blame someone for the actions of an appointee? That would be like casting blame on Lenin for the purges and famines just because he appointed Stalin General Secretary. But I'm sure you'll think of a million excuses for that, and I won't be allowed to call you a Stalin apologist.

No, I mean, I probably am someone you would consider a "Stalin apologist", particularly since I find the entire "Holodomor genocide" notion to be a bit of anti-communist fancy. The point is that Stalin did not advocate purges when he was appointed the general secretary (and he was not appointed by Lenin, for that matter, but elected by the C.C.; and as an administrator Stalin seems to have been perfectly capable, even considering he took over the post of the immensely practical Sverdlov). In fact he was noted for his advocacy of democratic measures, de-militarisation and so on. On the other hand Conti was already noted as a critic of the inefficiency of the episcopal inquisitions (institutions that Francis seems to have accepted without complaint), and had undersigned many of the administrative and doctrinal decisions of the Church, when Francis appointed him the Franciscan representative at Rome (and Francis would go on to collaborate with him extensively).


Oh great, the old "bourgeois historian" card. Give me a fucking break. There's really nothing more sad than writing off decades of serious historical study as being "bourgeois." What an absolutely ridiculous and naive way to approach scholarship. What, are you telling me that you only read Eric Hobsbawm and J. Arch Getty? "Marxist" historians are no better than "bourgeois" historians, and I would love to see you prove otherwise.

That depends on the subject. Sure, bourgeois historians can be immensely useful, but their class position needs to be taken into account, particularly when they try to talk about socialism. I already gave an example of H. Taine, an excellent if highly tendentious historian, whose understanding of what socialism is was absolutely appalling.

Or do you think the Spartan and Roman states were also proto-communist?


You also seem to be ignoring the fact that Marxists in the past have been willing to discuss communism in relation to Christianity, as Dave B points out above. I don't know whether it's your Spartacist edginess or just plain ignorance that keeps you from acknowledging these things.

"Marxists in the past" like Kautsky, who as I already noted had a very peculiar notion of who was and who wasn't a communist. I think this thread shows that a lot of people (I'm not surprised by Dave B at all) share this very curious view of communism.

[Alexios]

Oh, and what might those "taboo topics" be? Because you're starting to sound more and more right-wing.

Says the one promoting the murder of workers and making up excuses for purges and famines.


And to be honest, anyone who thinks the Jacobins were proto-communist needs to take a good hard look at what they're saying as well. The Jacobins were radical liberals. Babeuf's group, which claimed a connection to the Jacobin movement, was proto-communist, though.

Now, unfortunately, communists can and have been misogynists and racists - although in most cases this places their consistency in serious doubt. I never said "Francis can't have been a proto-communist because he was a misogynist", I am merely noting how ridiculous it is to claim that Francis was opposed to gender discrimination.But he did. While the rest of the church thought women should only be allowed religious status so long as they remained cloistered, Francis actively sought to bring the Sisters of St. Clare together with the Franciscans so that they could both work and preach in public regardless of sex. This is attested to in Clare of San Damiano's 'Testament'.


Note that this "well-established historical fact" is so "well-established" that our dear Alexios can't cite any of the sources. Because that would be "doing my homework". Right. In serious debate (and yes, a debate remains serious even if someone hurts your fragile feelings by pointing out how worrying your statements sound) people are expected to back their points up if asked to do so.If you want a source for something, then ask. You have not provided a single source for your claims either.


Yeah, and if you think that was a bad thing, you probably have no business calling yourself a Trotskyist - that is a lesson some of the liberals posing as Trotskyists need to learn. Now, are you saying that the conduct of the mediaeval Church was not reprehensible?lol


Which is irrelevant as long as we're discussing his actions while he was alive and very much in control of the order.Then why did he speak out against the inquisitions and other acts of religious violence? His approach to perceived infidels was highly radical for its time. Not only did he oppose confrontational conversion practices, but there is evidence to suggest that he didn't hold Muslims to be infidels, but rather mistaken on aspects of a common religion held by all people.


No, I mean, I probably am someone you would consider a "Stalin apologist", particularly since I find the entire "Holodomor genocide" notion to be a bit of anti-communist fancy. The point is that Stalin did not advocate purges when he was appointed the general secretary (and he was not appointed by Lenin, for that matter, but elected by the C.C.; and as an administrator Stalin seems to have been perfectly capable, even considering he took over the post of the immensely practical Sverdlov). In fact he was noted for his advocacy of democratic measures, de-militarisation and so on. On the other hand Conti was already noted as a critic of the inefficiency of the episcopal inquisitions (institutions that Francis seems to have accepted without complaint), and had undersigned many of the administrative and doctrinal decisions of the Church, when Francis appointed him the Franciscan representative at Rome (and Francis would go on to collaborate with him extensively).
You keep going on about Cardinal Hugolino, not even realizing that he and Francis very often conflicted and likely had a falling out later in Francis' life. Furthermore, you seem totally ignorant of the fact that there is a paucity of primary sources in Medieval history. We don't have writings documenting everything that occurred in this time period, so it's absurd to say that Francis accepted Hugolino's inquisitions when the source for it doesn't exist, and maybe never has existed.


That depends on the subject. Sure, bourgeois historians can be immensely useful, but their class position needs to be taken into account, particularly when they try to talk about socialism. I already gave an example of H. Taine, an excellent if highly tendentious historian, whose understanding of what socialism is was absolutely appalling.

Or do you think the Spartan and Roman states were also proto-communist?
But Vauchez doesn't talk about communism, nor does any Francis scholar that I'm aware of.


"Marxists in the past" like Kautsky, who as I already noted had a very peculiar notion of who was and who wasn't a communist. I think this thread shows that a lot of people (I'm not surprised by Dave B at all) share this very curious view of communism.I don't care about the particulars of their writings, what I'm pointing out is that it's possible to be a Marxist and have a dialogue on Medieval history without being some kind of reactionary.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Says the one promoting the murder of workers and making up excuses for purges and famines.

Ha, ha, no. I really think you should answer the question. What are these "taboo topics" that Catholic "communists" need to "check in with the Ministry or Truth" (wrong ministry, I'm with the Austrian ministry of the interior) before discussing?

[Dave B]

Irrespective to what anybodies view is on early Christianity itself there is little doubt that over the course of almost 2000 years its original meaning or content has been completely and miraculously inverted to the point that it has little to compare to it.

Apart from perhaps Bolshevism and Stalinism; whether or not one pales in comparison to the other is a matter of opinion I suppose.

When it comes to the ‘Christians’ and the ‘Marxists’ it should be the responsibility of the Marxists community first, as rational historians, to remove the log from their own eyes before removing the speck from their Christian opponents.

Perhaps beginning with the inquisitorial purges of the Bolsheviks which, as was normal in these things, focused on the heretics and apostates within their own ideological, anti capitalist community.

As the British representative, Lockhart and German consul in Russia in 1918 independently noted, with some astonishment, the Bolsheviks were murdering and rounding up predominantly self described ‘socialists’.

Whilst they still had the support of support of orthodox anarchists incidentally eg Berkman and Goldman; until it became their turn later.

The revisionism of Christianity probably originated early with the writings of Paul; perhaps unsurprisingly as a member of the ruling imperial class and something he boasted of rather than apologised for.

Paul is to Christianity what Trotsky and Lenin is to communism as far as I am concerned.

I suppose for Christians the extent to which the material in the gospel documents as the ‘word of god ‘has been utterly perverted is their own concern.

Genuine communists like myself have seen their own ‘word’ perverted in equal or even greater degree.

The crossover I suppose has some similarities.

As has been noted by others in the past, the similarities between bolshevism and the roman catholic church extend beyond the purely ‘ideological’ and into the economic.

The Roman catholic church, like the Bolshevik party, became quite quickly as much an economic enterprise as anything else within itself negating the principal of private or personal property as with Bolshevik state capitalism.

And a hierarchal economic organisation ostensibly organised on the basis an elitist and meritocratic ‘understanding’ of its own self serving ideology.

In ‘form’ the Bolshevik’s congregation were only ‘degraded, and so corrupted’ in the same way as the Roman Catholic one was.

So Leninism and Roman Catholicism?

Yeah, with that.

I have not studied post 5th century communistic ideas within mainstream theology.

Whinstanley was different and almost a materialist, it is unfortunate that Karl was oblivious of his material and even existence as an individual.

This pope is an interesting character though I think, he must really believe his own crap and think he is going to heaven; he has just excommunicated the Mafia apparently.

I remember an extract from Lockhart’s book were he described a fat arch bishop being dragged to a Bolshevik firing squad blubbering and crying like a baby and screaming for his life.

Lockhart’s book is a really great read by the way and nothing like what you might expect.