Tuesday, December 20, 2016

The Bible and Private Property

Conservatives/Republicans, and Christians who advocate an Anachro-Capitalist form of Libertarianism, like to claim The Bible is firmly for the concept of Private Property.

I would agree that the Bible is against Governments owning all Property, and hence against certain forms of Socialism.  Simply taking moral commands to give to the Poor as calling for Socialism is basically asking the Government to enforce Morality.

However I am among many who reject the idea that Communism is compatible with Socialism, because true Communism is Anarchistic.  If I have a political ideology at all, it is a form of Libertarian-Communism or Anarchist-Communism.  To us Socialism is not an alternative to Capitalism, Socialism is Capitalism where the State is the Capitalist, that goes for the USSR, China, North Korea and Cuba.

Many Libertarian Communists make a distinction between Private Property and Personal Property.  But the key issue is we believe that the means of production should be shared.

The Bible depicts the ultimate owner of all land as God who Created everything.  But He gave the Earth to Adam, to Mankind as a whole.  Then later He specifically gave the Near East to Abraham, and Israel to Jacob.  But it is for the Israeli people as a collective, not just for those rich enough to be able to buy everything.  In fact that whole nature of God giving the Canaanite's land to Israel is pretty against the Lockian view of Property Rights.

Yes there is much emphasis on Inheritance for Families.  But the Torah includes many regulations for that, some of which were linked to The Jubilee.  But most importantly is the right of the Poor to glean what they need to live off Farm Land regardless of who owned it.  That is utterly incompatible with a modern Conservative or Anachro-Captialist understanding of Private Property.

Speaking of John Locke, all this talk about Constitutional Values being "Christian" values because they come from John Locke is kind of funny to me because Locke was a heretic who bounced between Socinianism (denying the Pre-Existence of Christ) and Arianism.  The brief time he was within Trinitarian Christianity he was a Calvanist, meaning not a supporter of "Libertarian Free Will".  Now I may still agree with Locke in some areas (he argued for the equality of the Sexes) but his views on Property were never Biblical.

I've seen conservatives cite David' insistence on paying Ornan the Jebusite for his Threshing floor even though Ornan was willing to give it to him for free as evidence of how important Private Property is to The Bible and against immanent domain. But once again the Conservatives are ignoring where Scripture interprets itself, David explains why he insists on paying for it, it's because this is all for a Sacrifice to YHWH and it wouldn't be a Sacrifice if it cost him nothing.

Much has been said about how the Early Church in Acts practiced a form of Communism.  I've seen many Conservative Christians say this was the Jerusalem Church and why that Church failed.  I would say there is plenty of evidence all the Churches Paul founded and wrote to were doing the same thing.  And I see no evidence the Jerusalem Church failed, it existed at least until the Bar-Kockhba revolt.

A notable Christian who's views on politics may be similar to mine was Gerrard Winstanley.  He's been called both one of the first Communists and one of the first Christian Anarchists.  He was contemporary with the English Civil War of the mid 17th Century.  He cited Samuel's speech against Monarchy in I Samuel after Israel called for a King as being against the idea of Government in general.  He interprets Israel's system under the Judges as being a form of Anarchism, and emphasized the Communism practiced by the Early Church.

Other contemporaries of his that are of interest were John Liburne, who was similar but less Radical, Henry Vane and Roger Williams the founder of Rhode Island and true innovator of American Religious Freedom.  Vane was allied with Cromwell at first but quickly came into conflict with him when Cromwell started showing his true Proto-Fascist colors.

During the French Revolution, many people were descendants of the above men's Political views, but not men I'd agree with Spiritually being mostly Atheists and Deists.  They were members of the Society of the Friends of Truth, founded by Nicholas Bonnevile who had previously been in England (where he was friends with John Oswald).  And included men like Condorcet and his wife Sophie, Sylvian Marchel, Francois "Gracchus" Babeuf, and Olympe de Gouges.  Their contemporary kin in the English speaking world included Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine.  But in Germany strangely enough included some members of the controversial Bavarian Illuminati, chiefly Kingge.  I'm still a conspiracy theorist, but one who's come largely to view the hype around the Bavarian Illuminati as a distraction.

Marco di Luchetti has made an English Translation of one of Bonneville's books.  And in the introduction talks at length about the ideology and politics of the group, on things like Property and Taxation.  He is wrong in how he massively overstates Bonneville's connection to the Illuminati, and in confusing Iluminism with the Illuminati, Terry Melanson is a better historian on The Illuminati.  Bonneville like Jefferson publicly defended the Illuminati but there is no evidence he was a member, if he'd been recruited by Bode it would be mentioned in Bode's memoirs of his trip to France which we still have.  But he's very good at describing the different political factions of the Revolution.  And it talks about how Kingge even though not a Believer modeled his Communist Utopia after the Judges system in The Bible.

Upon reading Marco di Luchetti's book, I definitely still have areas of disagreement with Bonneville and Brissiot, chiefly their Preemptive War policy.

Robespierre was a Demagogue and a Statist.  In truth he was more a Monarchist then the Royalists, but wanted himself to be the Dictator.  The marriage of Communism and Socialism began with Buonarroti.  He was a follower of Robespierre, and has also been claimed to be an Illuminati member though there is no documentation that he was.   He was an important figure in the history of the Carbonari and Italian Freemasonry.  Mazzini then carried on his mantle in a more militant and Nationalist form leading to Italian Fascism. And at the same time Bounarroti influenced Karl Marx and Engels.  But in spite of having a common mentor Marx and Mazzini hated each other.

Larken Rose is also an Unbeliever, and follows a somewhat Anachro-Captialist form of Libertarianism.  But he has this video which I find good to cross reference with my posts about Patriotic Idolatry.

So I don't have an exact model of how I feel Libertarian-Communism should look.  But this is all stuff I feel Christians need to start rethinking our assumptions on.


  1. The government doesn't have to be the one to practice charity, and indeed it is not their job. If there's a redeeming quality to Catholicism as practiced everyday in towns and cities it is the fact that all the food banks and 'welfare' kitchens seem to be run by Catholics. A square meal a day goes a long way toward preventing malnutrition and showing you care about the community.

    I've never witnessed a Protestant church open their doors to the dregs of society, every day, 7 days a week - sometimes lunch and supper - just to offer meals and solace from everyday poverty.

    It could be where I live though, but I've traveled all through Canada and it seems to be the norm wherever you go.

    1. What you talk about here overlaps with my Healthcare post a bit. I agree, The Church as a hole needs to stop being so Political and start spending more time and resources helping the poor and the sick.

  2. It's probably not fair to say that the Bavarian Illuminati are a distraction. There's other areas that show promise though. The Order Mizraim is one. They were figured in the birth of the French Carbonari and grand masters of the Order were in the inner circle of Buonarroti's Sublime Maitres Parfait. They also trace their history back to Chefdebien's Primitive Rite of the Philadelphes of Narbonne. Both Chefdebien and Roettiers de Montaleau were in the Philalethes and joined Bode's Philaldelphes inner circle which was a front for the Illuminati. Buonarroti would later join a a Genevan lodge, in 1811, called the Amis Sinceres. This lodge's patent was authorized by none other that Roettiers de Montaleau (at the time Grand Master of the Grand Orient of France); Buonarroti then set about creating another secret order within the Lodge called 'Philadelphes.' These Philadelphes would later join with the revolutionary Adelphes in Italy, be subsumed into Buonarroti's Sublimes Maitres Parfait and then take over the Carbonari completely.

    'Philadlphes' is the key to some sort of continuity here.

    1. Indeed, all those are Rabbit holes I intend to go down in the future.

      I feel the history of Freemasonry in England is greatly overlooked, since it largely originated there. Which factors into why I inquired about Walpole on Twitter.

    2. Is there any evidence of a connection between Jean Jacques Régis de Cambacérès and the Philadelphes?