Is the idea of Munzerian xtianity viable for modern leftists? Probably not! Watch out. The minute a modern secular humanist steps backward into a religious context he immediately becomes subject to its spiritual concealed elements, if any, that are tantamount to a complete demonology. They have gone to great lengths to escape that, why turn around and go into the woods all over again.
Feuerbach didn’t quite put it that way, but it amounts to the same thing.
However, please note, secular humanists are subject to that in any case, save that they have said ‘no’ to it. So advocating a yes would be the wrong approach.
My thinking was really about a meta-xtianity based in the Reformation that gave the older religion a possible future in a new era. What that will be is not clear. But it will have to satisfy the Kantian point of no return on metaphysics.
First, the heavens dropped a massive hint in the year 1525 with Munzer and the Peasant Revolution in a form of revolutionary communism. This was destroyed almost immediately as the Reformation fell into the hands of the net equivalent of the (Lutherian) bourgeoisie. It raises serious questions about the integrity of the Reformation.
More generally, a leftist, if he dare not convert to an archaic religion, can nonetheless stand in a neutral stance to observe, via a church of historical memory, the classic emergence of xtianity in the Roman Empire’s dawn, and its subsequent recreation of the cultures of that soon moribund empire.
Any leftist has to look in some awe at this mysterious formation. Its outer format is so confusing we can’t grasp how it worked. The New Testament is the key document and totally confusing now, as secular humanists puke it out. But at least, a leftist should consider that the xtian transformation of the Roman Empire was a pretty slick operation. There was clearly a deep source spiritual driving action, and we don’t really know what it was.
In any case, a church of historical memory can at least free itself from leaden scientism, cautiously asking some ‘what was that’ questions, which it can’t answer, probably. Still it is important to see the mysterious tour de force at work and compared to the lead boots of bolshevism it was a very strange operation.
Who was behind it? God? I doubt it myself. Egyptian gnostics? that’s getting warm, but… Buddhist Mahayanists? That’s a suspicious case: just around 0BC/AD the buddhist sangha spawned a lore of spiritual saviors, and this in synchronous time with the appearance of a very definite savior cult/soon religion with all the pieces in place in the savior ‘covert ops’. What was the connection? We don’t know. But the buddhist sangha was maturing and yet saw the limits of its operations. They must have decided to skip the hard way for the cultic manipulation of populations via saviors. But xtianity was a very direct descendant of the Israelite Axial period, and this is the core source.
We have the clue to a future post-xtian communist secularism (to me, secular and sacred are the same), but it won’t look like the Axial Age brand (which had some many confusions we would not wish to imitate it): it will share core invariants, with no historical details un-remorphed…
The xtian scheme was lot cleverer than we think, and did its work and then broke the mould, so imitation won’t work. But at this point historical materialist crud won’t work either, so….
The core themes are already there in the early modern, but we have slummed it with scientism based on physics. But there is a much broader interpretation of modernity and we have yet to even interpret the secular, let alone the sacred…