Read on Twitter
Thread with Excerpts form "The Economics of Monasticism" by Nathan Smith
One of the constant struggles of communal secularism/socialism is the inability to actually "continue the commune" a similar example is in the contrast between short-lived secular Kibbutz and the more long-lasting religious ones.
For all the talk of Liberal "consent of the governed" The actual structure of any individual Liberal State is imposed. Unlike a commune one cannot leave the liberal structure.
The worship motive of joining a monastery does not come from The Hierarchy, as they were not ordered to happen by the papacy
---
I would add that the fact it has emerged in multiple religions is additional evidence for this
---
---
I would add that the fact it has emerged in multiple religions is additional evidence for this
---
Contrary to expectations, the rigid Rule of St. Benedict was not the starting point of western monasticism but its codification. Multiple times during the history of Western Monasticism was Benedictine Practice returned to.
---
Lindy
---
Lindy
Should have done this as the second tweet but link to the paper:
https://www.thearda.com/workingpapers/download/The%20Economics%20of%20Monasticism.pdf
https://www.thearda.com/workingpapers/download/The%20Economics%20of%20Monasticism.pdf
"Communism doesn't work" is over-simplistic of not wrong in light of the success of monasticism and religiously motivated centrally planned/palace economies
---
I would be a bit less triumphalist by pointing out that while small communes are successful, palace economies collapse.
---
I would be a bit less triumphalist by pointing out that while small communes are successful, palace economies collapse.
The key relationship of a commune is its balance, its competition with the outside world, primarily over the commitment of communal members.
---
That it is the rigid communal system which survives through the ages shows that it is not purely utility that motivates
---
---
That it is the rigid communal system which survives through the ages shows that it is not purely utility that motivates
---
Monastic Economies are separated from the external economy, most notably in a *deliberate* lack of property rights
More austere monastic orders end up becoming rentiers within three generations:
The assumption that it is an outside hierarchical force which *imposes* lack of worldy wealth on members is incorrect. Monks and Nuns do not liquidate into private wealth by their own choice.
Benedicts innovation was the imposition of lifelong membership.
Child Oblates were, unlike other members, forced into lifelong monasticism by others, their parents. This practice was condemned by the Cistercians and was forbidden by the 13th century.
Retvrn:
Monasteries, while not economically productive in the sense of generating private wealth, were incredibly productive by all other measures even into the period after the Dark Ages:
