Sonja Luehrmann questions the validity of an analogy between Bolshevism and “religion.” I do not draw such an analogy. I reject the concept of religion entirely (for reasons I discuss early in the book), define millenarianism as a belief in the imminent and violent end of our imperfect world, and argue that Bolshevism was a full-fledged millenarian movement (irrespective of whether all movements that fit my definition of millenarianism fit someone else’s definition of “religion”).
Wikipedia says that millenarianism
is the belief by a religious, social, or political group or movement in a coming fundamental transformation of society, after which “all things will be changed”.
1. Slezkine describes the Bolsheviks in 1917 as like the proverbial dog that caught the fire engine. For years, Russian intellectuals had looked forward to the end of the tsarist regime. And the First World War looked like the violent end of the imperfect capitalist world. But the Bolsheviks had no blueprint for creating the heaven on earth that was supposed to follow.
2. The “fundamental transformation of society” usually requires the identification and elimination of an evil group. Often, it involves previously marginalized groups destroying previously dominant groups.
3. I suspect that millenarianism is one attempt to come to terms with one’s own mortality. I think this hits people the hardest when they are young. As they get older, most people get past the shock that they will not live forever. For those who can’t get past it, one coping mechanism is to take comfort in the belief that the whole world as we know it is going to die soon.
4. If one has children and grandchildren who seem to be on a path for a decent life, the continuity of society becomes tolerable, even desirable.
5. Hitler seems like a millenarian. He really wanted to remake the world. And in the end he reportedly thought that the German people deserved to be killed because they had let him down.
6. Antifa and the most radical self-described anti-racists strike me as millenarian.
“If one has children and grandchildren who seem to be on a path for a decent life, the continuity of society becomes tolerable, even desirable.”
That’s so consistent with my “lived experience.” Nothing turned me back towards conservatism except for our child. After she was born, basically nothing else was relevant except for Enlightenment values. We even moved from a blue state to a red state just to get away from the silliness.
Somebody check my brain…
https://youtu.be/SBcADQziQWY
last post explained, as dependency ratio grows things will change (for worse) as the old rich parents eat the young poor kids via gov transfers. It’s telling the White House defensive perimeter went from truck/plane bombs to anti scaling fences.
I cannot speak for everyone, but our daughter is due a pretty hefty inheritance from our trust if she can learn to play her cards right. I’m pretty sure that she can although she is only 6 yo. We have no desire to rip-off our offspring, but I don’t really care about everyone else’s offspring. Take care of your own sh*t you profligate, irresponsible fools.
“If one has children and grandchildren who seem to be on a path for a decent life, the continuity of society becomes tolerable, even desirable.”
Becoming a parent is politically transformative.
I’ve been saying for some time that you could build a whole political philosophy and program as an extension from this one principle, “A Decent Life for Decent People”, and which is based on Nucleocentrist Familialism, affordable family formation, and legal privileges for mothers and fathers. Trying to implement such a program today would be so radical as to require total regime change, but one could go further with the principle of “Rule By Parents” – Goneisocracy, not too old to be Gerontocracy, not too young to be untethered from reality, ideologically reckless, and millenarian in outlook.
The grand democratic strategy of the left is fundamentally Brechtian, to dissolve the people and elect another. Specifically, offer more stuff and status to clients, and generate more clients.
The grand democratic strategy of the right is to encourage voters to be early adopters of life patterns which entrench them into circumstances in which their perspective and interests change to those aligned with the continuation and bolstering of the traditional arrangements and modes of social organization.
“Becoming a parent is politically transformative. I’ve been saying for some time that you could build a whole political philosophy and program as an extension from this one principle”
+1 thank you. You probably don’t care (I wouldn’t and it might actually be seen as detrimental), but based on this and other analysis, we are now loyal subscribers to your blog. Thanks so much for your thoughts.
What you’re describing is the kind of conservatism I can respect, but I’m not sure how well you’re describing the kind of conservatism that’s actually on the ballot.
Yes to a “Family Party”.
“A Decent Life for Decent People”, and which is based on Nucleocentrist Familialism, affordable family formation, and legal privileges for mothers and fathers.
This sounds like Tucker Carlson in January.
I was fantasizing about ordering all school districts in America by the marriage status of the kids. Both parents married to each other – 3 points. Parent with custody married to non-parent – 1 point. Parent unmarried, 0 – points.
For the parents in the bottom third, they should get an “Anniversary Bonus” of $1000 plus $100 for each year of marriage and plus $100 for each child under 12.
The failure of all “social need” support programs is that it rewards bad choices which relatively punishes those making the more difficult/ less fun good choices (to be responsible).
We need MORE gov’t supporting good choices.
This is the truly bad #6 Libbers in trouble issue (prior post)
We’re not going to get rid of the bad programs that support bad choices.
I suspect that millenarianism is one attempt to come to terms with one’s own mortality. I think this hits people the hardest when they are young. As they get older, most people get past the shock that they will not live forever. For those who can’t get past it, one coping mechanism is to take comfort in the belief that the whole world as we know it is going to die soon.
That’s insightful. I would add that I think as people get older, they acquire status, prestige, and usually some amount of capital, all of which wed them to the status quo. Young people have few of those things, so they have fewer incentives to want to maintain the status quo.
Jives with my theory a civil war 2 will be generational, not racist fascist millenarianism.
The most dangerous millenarian cults today are the apocalyptic climate alarmists.
Highly zealous and allowing no dissent, questioning, they fervently worship and enrich their leaders (Al Gore, Greta, Mann) whose daily pronouncements of new impending end of day’s events justify anything and anything. How many times have we been told that some grand climatic event (an ice free arctic, mass starvation, etc) was imminent only to see the predicted date pass with no fanfare and a new deadline issued.
If the climate alarmists actually wanted to persuade nonconformists and free thinkers they would:
(1). State in degrees Fahrenheit what they thought the ideal pre-Industrial era temperature for human flourishing was, and why.
(2). Explain if and how they can distinguish anthropogenic change from natural climate change.
(3). Offer a reasonable method to falsify their forecasts of doom.
But they don’t and it’s all appeals to authority based on esoteric information accessible only to the elect.
I would take communists over alarmists: my gut says that the death toll from the latter will be greater.
I think Sigmund Freud – who of course disdained religion – suggested that religion was like a neurosis that inoculated people against other neuroses. A common but I think plausible trope these days is that the vacuum created by the decline in religion is largely responsible for some modern ideological trends. Religion was much of how we dealt with our mortality and place in the world, and now that’s gone, so we find other, perhaps less stable (than most common religious views at least) ways.