Template:Primitive Communism

Primitive Communism

Primitive Communism was a departure from the autonomy of the natural family unit which forced community sharing which is the antitheses of true egalitarianism which is "the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities." It gave rise to the Cain syndrome and the rise of the State.

Roman Montero wrote a book, "All things in common", suggesting that early Christians were communists because of his private interpretation of the "all things common" quote. Roman redefines communism as from each according to his ability and to each according to his need. That of course is not the definition of Communism because you must answer how the distribution is made.

Who has the authority to take from one and give to another which is the very function of charity. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 makes it clear that if you do not work you should not eat.

Communism is not a system of charity but a system of one purse which runs to evil and we are warned against.

The idea of "primitive communism" originated from the teachings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. They of course argued that hunter-gatherer societies were traditionally based on egalitarian social relations and common ownership. They used their faulty logic to promote the covetous ruler-ship of collectivism through the state which was one of the great disasters of our time.

Their ideas about Communism eventually produced some of the most blood thirsty governments of the last millennium robbing and destroying some of the most productive members of society. Suggesting that "primitive communism" is the natural course of society is utter nonsense.

Among primitive Inuit you would commonly share any seal you caught in hope that if you did not catch a seal the next day others might share with you what they caught. You owned your knife, your spear, your bow, your mukluks and parka which might be the total of your wealth. And if you were a really good hunter people would make sure you got the lion share of food and even gift warmer mittens to you because you were more important than others.

This idea of "primitive communism" by Marx and Engels is fiction. A sharing society and communism are not the same thing. They would have been better to call it "primitive capitalism". The hunter or gatherer accumulates food or resources because he owns his personal means of production, his labor. What he gathers is his. He may consume it, use it, store it or he may take it back to the camp or tribe where he then may choose to share with other hunter gatherers in that he will win or earn their favor and appreciation to win favor and promote community.

The original society of man was centered in the family or clan which came together as tribes through mutual sharing of danger and resources. Those who willingly chose to share what they produced or gathered by an individual free choice created bonds which held society together based on the nobility of the heart. The compelled sharing by any hierarchies that exercise authority would give rise to tyranny and abuse like in the story of Cain or Nimrods of the world. There may have been a hierarchy within a free society but it was often based on honor and respect through the virtues of courage, unselfish sacrifice and ability.

This "primitive capitalism" was practiced by whole nations which had a system of voluntary redistribution of wealth through what was called altars.

The egalitarian society is one where all people deserve equal rights and opportunities not a right to what others produce, hunt or gather. A sharing society dependent upon charitable love for one another was the tradition of the early Church and Moses but John the Baptist and Jesus were specific that you should not force that sharing by an exercising authority over the other.

Yes, Justin the Martyr and Tertulian talked about sharing bread and the apostles rightly divided bread from house to house, but this was within a system of charity and choice. There was no Benefactors who exercised authority one over the other in the Christian community.

Jesus was not a socialist nor did the early Church practice communism. Communism is not a system of charity but a system of one purse which Bible says runs to evil and we are warned against.

Montero and others who misinterpret the "all things common" quote incorrectly fail to understand the separation of the Church and state or people. Like the Levites of old, Moses and Jesus created a system of self-government where the ministers were separate and titular from the general population of the people. They could not exercise authority one over the other like the Benefactors of the world. While they owned all things in common they did not exercise authority one over the other. The people did not belong to the body of Levites but individually belonged to God Himself or so is the intention of God. The ministers of the Church in the wilderness and the early Church owned all things in common but the people were returned to their possessions and their families.

The same as the Church in the wilderness the early Church as a group of appointed ministers called out to minister to the Kingdom of God at hand was composed of men and women who belonged to God, were not of the "world" and were assigned to feed his sheep just as the Levites served the tents of the congregations by providing a Daily ministration through the Corban or sacrifice of the people given as Freewill offerings which the New Testament calls charity. They, the Church and its ordained ministers, held things as joint heirs of a society with a mission of charity as unhewn but lively Stones from which the living Altars of God may be built.

The sheep of Christ hear his voice and live by charity not by force, the appointed shepherds of Christ provide a network of charity and a daily ministration of righteousness according to The Way of Christ.

In fact you cannot be a Communist nor even a socialist and a Christian at the same time. If we are going define a Christian as someone who believes Jesus and wants to do what he said. Socialism relies upon men who call themselves Benefactors but exercise authority one over the other.

Montero does see the Church and the Christian community as a system of self supporting charity where people provided and cared for one another but those who think the Christians were communists or even socialist are misled in their final conclusion because they do not understand the nature of the relationship of the appointed Church and the people they were meant to serve and the Kingdom of God and how it works and does not work.

Jesus was not a socialist. We were to take care of one another but only by freewill offerings motivated out of a loving heart and not a covetous one.