That’s a good point. Some people refuse to call Buddhism a religion for that reason. To confuse even more, popular Buddhism does include worship of gods. I have always considered Buddhism a sect of Hinduism, though Buddhists might object to that.

Right. And it seems that non-religious people use the word “religion” as an insult and something akin to irrational. Hayek wouldn’t have gotten any mileage out of calling communism a philosophy because of its neutral connotation. By calling it a religion, he insults socialists who belief it to be a science.

So I’m lazy! I can understand Hayek’s point, but I think it strange that he would make such a statement. Hayek emphasized clear, precise definitions of words more than anyone else I have read. Calling an atheistic philosophy of a religion just confuses things to the point of making communications impossible. If communism can be a religion, why not anarchism?

Oh come on. This is very silly for someone who continually tells people that they ought to read the book.

As far as explicitly, he says communism is a religion on p.137. For it is, I believe, itself a religion which had its time, and which is now declining rapidly. In his Counter-Revolution of Science, there is a chapter called something like The Religion of the Engineers, referring to would-be social engineers.

A major part of Hayek’s development in FC was that of the socialists animistic notions about “society.” Hayek writes that the socialists animistic conceptions led to their faith of being able to design society better that it is. That is, socialists have the teleological idea that society (and/or culture) is and can be designed. It is a parallel to the religious teleological argument that such complexity as our world’s could not occur by chance, but there must be a wise designer behind it. In socialism, the supernatural god is replaced by “wise legislators,” who then play god themselves. The irony is always that socialists consider themselves to be rationalistic. Hayek exploded that assertion and exposed their faith and belief system for what it is.

Hayek is not difficult to understand. The writing is extraordinarily lucid and insightful for such a difficult topic.

Jim Bell’s Assassination Politics are not feasible(however attractive and just those might be in theory), since proliferation of strong crypto is effectively banned and whatever scraps of knowledge about encryption techniques, that do exist are readily countered by the amount of computing resource available to brute force anything in public domain.

Once the state would detect any amount of appreciable descent and resistance, we’ll be nuked or poisoned in great numbers. The majority of the population would be bumped back into dark ages, while the parasitic elite would continue to remain in control.

Our children’s minds are being poisoned with multiple levels of religious and state propaganda. They grow up without free will or thought and totally uncaring of the world and society we all live in. Mindless automatons. Higher education is denied to the masses. The process of stupefying individuals is a never ending story since the moment we started counting time units. Time and again, the establishment denied us knowledge and technological advances.

What tools do we have to fight off the oppression ? Should we simply crawl away and die in silence ? Commit mass suicide ?

And to those who like having faith in all kinds of flying spaghetti monsters – leave the rest of us alone, don’t try to convert more people, don’t spread your insanity. We have enough problems already, without having to deal with religious nonsense.

I think that too often we confuse the administration of religion with religion itself.

I have read it. Twice, because he’s so hard to undertand. I didn’t get that out of it. Could you site the passages you refer to? Mainly I got from it that socialism was a result of the false style of reasoning that developed during the French enlightenment. But since atheism is a philosophy, as is communism, and religions are special types of philosophies, there are obviously some similarities.

I was referring to the anarchists who claim their atheism has nothing to do with communism because communism is a type of religion. But if you can make communism a type of religion, then you can make anarchism a type of religion, too. In the end, you have nonsense, religious atheism. On second thought, religious atheism describes modern mainstream theology very well!

Excellent article.

I am from India. We are supposedly the world’s largest democracy. But we have virtually no say in how we are governed and by whom and, as you rightly said, the government, local, State and Federal and its agents/contractors not only have their hands perpetually in our pockets but we have diktats handed out to us affecting almost every aspect of our personal lives.

Communism is a philosophy, not a religion. That may seem like a minor point to you, but it isn’t to me.

You really ought to read Hayek’s Fatal Conceit. There, he writes about how socialism is a religion.

You just described the old USSR and Communist China, and don’t give me that libertarian nonsense that communism is just another religion. Communism was atheist in every sense of the word.

I’ve been wondering why so many libertarians are atheist…it appears they don’t like the idea of God being paired up with government. But Jefferson’s “Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom” called for separation of Church and State:

“We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body of goods, nor shall suffer otherwise on acount of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.”

The following excerpts are from a letter that Jefferson wrote to Joseph Priestly, and present Jefferson’s personal views on religion:

I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he [Christ] wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other…I am averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public; because it would countenence the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the rights of conscience, which the laws have so justly proscribed. It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others…It behooves him, too, in his own case, to give no example of concession, betraying the common right of independent opinion, by answering questions of faith, which the laws have let between God and himself.

“Out of the Flames” by Goldstone, pp293-294.

IMHO, Jefferson’s beliefs were pretty much in line with those of Jesus, who did not want to be part of any Government that is of this Earth:

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”

John 18:36
New American Standard Bible (©1995)

Finally, if you don’t like the idea of a religious leader extolling the virtues of a particular political figure from the pulpit, or don’t appreciate the discussion of politics in the church bulletin, don’t just walk out angry. Take the individual to the side and remind them of the separation of Church and State.

Thus, my good fortune is that daily Lew Rockwell presents excellent scholars whose aim against statism and empire hits home dead center. So it is with Dr. Higgs’s splendid Schlarbaum speech.
I will treasure its marvelous, succinct reasoning. And I’ll memorize its arguments.

Thank you.

Daniel Bonner

Thus, my good fortune is that daily Lew Rockwell presents excellent scholars whose aim against statism and empire hits home dead center. So it is with Dr. Higgs’s splendid Schlarbaum speech.
I will treasure its marvelous, succinct reasoning. And I’ll memorize its arguments.

Thank you.

Daniel Bonner

Good luck with that.