Why did so many millions die under Socialism?

It was not only deaths due to starvation and shortages that inevitably result from the loss of efficiency-inducing market prices and private property.

It was certainly that, but it was also--and I would argue more importantly--the elimination of the 'infidels'--those who would not believe what they were supposed to believe. How many were imprisoned and killed simply for their ideological rejection of the Communist worldview? How many imprisoned for being 'reactionaries'? How many for going against 'the party'?

The horrors of 20th century collectivism, far from being the consequence of a LACK of religion, were just another man-fueled theocracy, except their god was History and the 'historical inevitability of return to the primordial One [oneness of being, thought, purpose, property, etc.].'

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

--which is to say, although I make common cause with those who criticise 'godless Communism' -- it's not exactly true that Communism has no god. The god of Communism is Man (all of us, as One); just the god of _all other forms of gnosticism_ is Man (all of us, as One). The problem with Communism is the same as the problem with gnosticism: neither man (nor Man) is god. That was the Serpents temptation from the begining.

All is not One.

All is Two: Creator, and creature.

He is God; we are not.

oof. "...just [as] the god of _all other forms of gnosticism_ is..."

#typosNeverDie

Reminds me of this essay:

https://mises.org/mises-daily/karl-marx-religious-eschatologist

(I’ve only read a few passages though. Yet to read the whole thing.)

Excellent article, I'm very familiar with it. I've read that whole work and it was incredibly eye-opening. Reading that and his _The Progressive Era_ were revolutionary for my thinking.

What's very interesting to me personally is, my (Christian) denomination was formed as a protest against the modernist tendencies of the PCUS in the mid- to late-1920s. In studying the history of the controversies that led to the ejection of J. Gresham Machen and the formation of the [OPC](https://opc.org), there were a surprising number of names dropped in Rothbard's works that had already been made known to me by studying the history of my own denomination. E.g., President Wilson (hisssss) was a neighbor of one of my favorite theologians (Geerhardus Vos), and a contemporary of J. Gresham Machen. His entire project of "postmillennial pietism" was part of the reason we were "kicked out" of that mainstream denomination.

FEE has published a couple of short homages to Machen:

- Lawrence W. Reed, "[J. Gresham Machen: God's Forgotten Libertarian](https://fee.org/articles/god-s-forgotten-libertarian/)" (2015)

- Daniel Walker, "[J. Gresham Machen: A Forgotten Libertarian](https://fee.org/articles/j-gresham-machen-a-forgotten-libertarian/)" (1993)

And the Mises Institute gave a "Brown Bag Seminar" back in 2009 about Machen:

- Shawn Ritenour, "[J. G. Machen: Calvinist, Revolutionary, Hero](https://mises.org/podcasts/individual-lectures/j-g-machen-calvinist-revolutionary-hero)"

You can get a sampling of Machen's arguments here: [Christianity and Liberalism](https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/machen/Christianity%20and%20Liberalism%20-%20J.%20Gresham%20Machen.pdf) (Free PDF) - note: by 'liberalism' he meant modernism (the rejection of the supernatural). And, there's also his appeal made to Christian Educators (prior to the founding of the Dept. of Education), which he made within a few months of Hitler's "What are you? We already have your children!" speech in Germany: [The Necessity of the Christian School](https://www.pcahistory.org/documents/necessity.html). In this speech he argues that one of the primary purposes of Christian Education is the preservation of liberty. Also very informative (even entertaining) is Machen's [testimony before congress](https://reformed.org/christian_education/Machen_before_congress.html). Hero, indeed!

...which is why I always exhort people to #ReadMachen and #ReadRothbard !

(FWIW: I'd thought that article was an excerpt from his [An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought](https://mises.org/library/book/austrian-perspective-history-economic-thought), but that might've been a standalone article. Not sure. But the same material is covered in the fomer volume.)

This one is from 'The Logic of Action' by Rothbard, a compilation of essays which got republished as 'Economic controversies', but the essay I shared was left out for some reason

I'm aware of all the Rothbard books you've cited but it's all on my reading list so I'll get to them soon!

So much to read and learn hahaha

...so true. "So many books...so little time." C. S. Lewis once said, half-jokingly, "I imagine heaven to be some sort of library..."

You'd recommended Van Til the other day

Is there any links between Machen and Van Til in terms of schools of thought?

Yes - when Machen and his colleagues were 'kicked out' of the PCUS, and when the modernists took over Princeton Seminary, Machen and others (including Van Til) formed a new seminary, Westminster Seminary (in Philadelphia). After Machen's unexpected death shortly thereafter (1936, I believe), Van Til was basically the 'main guy' leading the new school. Both were theologians in the Protestant/Reformed tradition; Van Til focused more on philosophy and apologetics while Machen was primarily a New Testament scholar.

Goodness this is something I have no clue about :(

Always something new to learn.

Thanks for sharing!

If we were ever in the same place, nostr:npub1xnc64f432zx7pw4n7zrvf02mh4a4p7zej3gude52e92leqmw8ntqd43qnl, I'd buy you a beverage of your choice. I bet we'd have some good discussions. 🤜🤛

Haha I'm sure! 🤜🤛