Yours,
Eric
"Henry C.K. Liu" wrote:
> I have been intrigued for a long time by the similarity of the Roman Catholic
> Church and the Communist Party, in schismatic disputes, in their centeralized
> organization, in the clergy and the party cadre system.
> I find comparison bwetween Luther and and Stalin interesting.
>
> In one of my earlier posts on Buddhism, I wrote:
>
> Martin Luther (1483-1546), in placing theological protest under the
> protection of secular power politics, would exploit the political
> aspirations of budding German principalities in the sixteenth century.
> In return, he would conveniently provide the German princes with a
> theological basis for political secession from the theocratic Holy Roman
> Empire.
>
> In like manner, Buddhism (Fo Jiao) in China provided the petty
> kingdoms that had sprung up during the dissolution of the Han empire, since the
> year 220, with a convenient theology for transition from ancient feudalism
> under a centralized authority to a fragmented political order of independent
> regional sovereign states.
> Analogous to the rise of European nationalism which would be a
> facilitating vehicle for the religious movement known as the Reformation
> which in turn would give birth to Protestant national states as
> political by-products, the fall of the Han dynasty (B.C. 206-220 A.D.)
> had not been independent of the growth of Buddhism in China. In fact,
> recurring official persecution of Buddhism in China throughout history
> has been motivated by the religion's persistent involvement in secular
> dissident politics. The corrupt impact of Buddhist politics on the
> ruling authority was deemed responsible for the tragic fate of the
> disintegrated Han dynasty.
>
> Luther would exploit the political aspirations of German princes to be
> independent of the Holy Roman Emperor to bolster his theological revolt
> from the Roman Catholic Church. But he would come to denounce peasant
> rebellions when the peasants would rebel against the same Protestant German
> princes. He would do so even though such peasant uprisings against the German
> princes would claim inspiration from the same theological ideas of the
> Reformation that had motivated the revolt
> against the Holy Roman Emperor by the same German princes for
> independence. Such radical ideas had been advocated by Luther.
> However, even Luther's professed personal sympathy for peasant demands for
> improved treatment from their oppressive princes would not persuade him to
> endorse peasant uprisings.
>
> In fact, Luther could be considered a Stalinist. Or more accurately,
> Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin (1879-1953) would in fact fit the
> definition of a Lutheran diehard, at least in revolutionary strategy if
> not in ideological essence. Like Luther, Stalin would suppress populist
> radicalism to preserve institutional revolution, and would glorify the
> state as the sole legitimate expeditor of revolutionary ideology.
>
> Early Protestantism, like Stalinism, would become more oppressive and
> intolerant than the system it would replace. Ironically, puritanical
> Protestant ethics celebrating the virtues of thrift, industry, sobriety
> and responsibility, would be identified by many sociologists as the
> driving force centuries later behind the success of modern capitalism
> and industrialized economy. Particularly, ethics as espoused by
> Calvinism which in its extreme would advocate subordination of the state
> to the Church, diverging from Luther's view of the state to which the
> Church is subordinate, would be ironically credited as the spirit behind
> the emergence of the modern Western industrial state.
>
> Early Buddhism, after its initial grass-root political successes in Tang
> China, would adopt similar Stalinist postures against further social
> revolution in following centuries, and it would always stop
> pragmatically short of demanding subordination of the state to religion.
>
> Henry
>
> Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> > Carl Remick wrote:
> >
> > >This can be argued either way. The fact that Marxism is rooted in
> > >materialism would seem to indicate that it is a sharp departure from
> > >Judaism, Christianity and Islam. On the other hand, there is much about
> > >Marx himself that falls squarely within the Abrahamic prophetic
> > >tradition. I believe there was an Episcopal bishop who argued that line
> > >of thought during the 1920s and was ex-communicated.
> >
> > At the Marxist Literary Group's conference this past June, many of us sat
> > in silent awe as one participant outlined his evolution from born-again
> > Christian to born-again Marxist. He found the teleological aspects of
> > Marxism entirely consistent with his earlier Christian views; the only
> > difference was that the redemption would be on earth rather than in heaven.
> > I don't think that's in Marx himself, but the spirit is there in lots of
> > Marxisms.
> >
> > Doug