I'm in the process of listening to Murray Rothbard's speech The Emergence Of Communism. I've listened to the first 5 minutes of it about 10 times as I'm unfamiliar with a lot of the references. At this rate, I'll finish the speech in a few years.
He begins the speech with reference to Norman Cohn's The Pursuit of the Millennium in which Cohn writes of an extremely influential Abbott in Italy during the 12th century. The Abbott's name was Yoachim of Fiora. Rothbard argues that the ideology behind communism can be derived from Yoachim's doctrine.
Yoachim's doctrine can be broken down into three ages:
- 1st: Age of the father, the old testament, holy trinity, age of the law, rule by fear
- 2nd: Age of the Son, Jesus Christ, Christianity, faith & submission
- 3rd: Age of the holy spirit, of perfect joy, the end of property, noone works, one vast monastery until last judgement, the end of human history
Yoachim claimed the third age would occur in 50 years.
Rothbard makes an excellent point about 50 years as a quantity, which is the purpose of this post. To quote Rothbard, "50 years is a good time because it makes everyone hopped up, and its not soon enough that you're pestered quickly by empirical reality".
That one quote made me think of global warming and Al Gore.
Yoachim of Fiora was so influential, he was very close to having the Pope accept his theory as official Catholic doctrine; almost.
As a side note, Rothbard points out that the significant difference between Yoachim and Marx is that Yoachim didn't have to deal with the allocation of resources and the division of labour because during the third age, everyone was a spirit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
LOL. Nope, such movements can not be attributed to one person. They are a result of innate characteristics of economics and genetics: humanity's need for community both personally and economically.
Surely you can trace the history of of an idea to its origination. I'm not saying Rothbard is right. You should listen to him if you question it. I think its the earliest form of that idea he could find. This reference is only 5 mins of an hour lecture.
It's not the result of an idea. Or, at least, the idea not the result of whim. The idea is the result of a very basic human characteristic: the need for community and a certain degree of equality.
5 hours of bullshit is still 5 hours of bullshit.
Of course its part of an idea. There's no historical evidence to support Marx.
"Of course its part of an idea. There's no historical evidence to support Marx."
In what way?
First evidence agains ideas being the wellspring of the brain only: Evolution. At one point, we were not self-conscious beings that used ideas. We evolved from organisms that dont use ideas.
You're the one saying Marx is reality, not just an "idea". You support it.
You`ll have to explain your point.
"You're the one saying Marx is reality, not just an "idea". You support it."
Why would I ever say "Marx is reality"? That would be an example of personality worship. Instead, I think certain arguments Marx made are correct.
Is there a specific point about what Marx argued that you would like to explore, or was your overgeneralization as stupid as it sounded?
"You`ll have to explain your point."
Which point?
`the need for community and a certain degree of equality.`
Not every individual has shown a need for community though. I would like evidence that all individuals need equality.
"Not every individual has shown a need for community though. I would like evidence that all individuals need equality."
Evidence: even rich, greedy people associate with other people in communities for pleasure and friendship.
No every rich individual.
"No every rich individual."
Oh, really? Which one? Even the greediest and most power hungry keep people around themselves for company.
You made the statement, and it is impossible for you to support it.
Even if there is a general need for community, a community is simply individuals working together and there is no reason to believe they cannot do this as free people.
"You made the statement, and it is impossible for you to support it."
It's impossible for me to support, because I never intended on supporting it. I am making sound arguments, not warranted arguments.
Again, no one lives in a bubbles. All nomadic tribes, without exception, were communal. All agricultural socierties, without exception, were communal.
"Even if there is a general need for community, a community is simply individuals working together and there is no reason to believe they cannot do this as free people."
You are right. There is no reason to believe that they can work together as a free people. Unfortunately, your first assertion does not stand. A community is not simple a bunch of indivduals who got together one day said, "Let's work together!" Bullshit. Our communal nature is the result of millions of years of evolution as A COMMUNAL SPECIES. Just like any other primate, we live in groups, not by choice, but by nature.
"Our communal nature is the result of millions of years of evolution as A COMMUNAL SPECIES. Just like any other primate, we live in groups, not by choice, but by nature."
Agreed, but that doesn't give moral authority to the community to claim ownership over what I earn.
"Agreed, but that doesn't give moral authority to the community to claim ownership over what I earn."
Moral authority? LOL, we were talking about cause and effect.
"Moral authority? LOL, we were talking about cause and effect."
Actually, we were talking about attributing a movement to 1 person, not specifically cause and effect. This thread needs to end, we're going nowhere.
"Actually, we were talking about attributing a movement to 1 person, not specifically cause and effect. This thread needs to end, we're going nowhere."
Actually, I counter-argued that community as a movement can not be attributed to one person. Community has a long, scientific history stretching back to the nomad tribal era.
This is an example of you lying to yourself.
Post a Comment