Was Communalism Inherent to Mazdakism?

Mazdakism was a reformist semi-gnostic Zoroastrian religious movement of the sixth century. Its prophet, the eponymous Mazdak, apparently lost favor with the Sassanids because he advocated communal property. Indeed, recently he has been hailed as a proto-socialist. Was such doctrine inherent to the religion, or was it as ultimately dispensable as similar tenets of Christianity?
 

PhilippeO

Banned
I think the major issue, communalism on land ownership / real estate is very important. it might change after couple centuries in power, but for the beginning, if Mazdak does take control of part of Iran, communal land properties will probably implemented. Mazdak supporters come from surplus male who didn't have any women and land, so the issues is important to them.
 
Agree with Philippe.
If you`re simply looking for a way to theologically reform Zoroastrianism in the late Sasanian period, try a different angle. Perhaps some response to the Mazdakist movement.
Mazdaksim`s egalitarianism was a unique and core feature and explained it vast attractiveness (as well as the fierce opposition against it by the aristocracy).
 
Agree with Philippe.
If you`re simply looking for a way to theologically reform Zoroastrianism in the late Sasanian period, try a different angle. Perhaps some response to the Mazdakist movement.
Mazdaksim`s egalitarianism was a unique and core feature and explained it vast attractiveness (as well as the fierce opposition against it by the aristocracy).

Then again, the same thing could be said about pre-Pauline Christianity. Was it too much of a core feature to be innovated away from, or was it ultimately a side facet?
 
frustrated progressive,
Egalitarianism in Christianity wasn`t done away with by Paul. Even for episcopal hierarchy to establish itself, it took more than another century. Various heresies of the 4th century attest to the immune reaction to the state-sponsored variety of Christianity, but the latter of course grew faster because it was able to attract millions of opportunists.
And still, and even in spite of much more than a millennium of anti-egalitarian church rule, Christianity`s egalitarian impulses were still felt throughout history repeatedly: Paulicians, Waldensians, Taborite Hussites, Müntzer`s radical Reformation, the Levellers etc., and some might say they are still alive even today.

And communalism was one important feature of the early Christian movement, not the only one - while in Mazdakism, it was even more central.

I would say it´s a safe bet that you couldn`t have just turned Mazdakism into a tamed reform theology in the 6th or even in the 7th centuries.
 
Is this uninteresting, or is it something else?

Unlike a lot of other topics, there are not a lot of experts on obscure 1400-year-old Zoroastrian sects here.

Was such doctrine inherent to the religion, or was it as ultimately dispensable as similar tenets of Christianity?

I genuinely don't think that there are any doctrines that are inherent to religions to the point that they cannot be done away with if the society that worships that religion finds them troublesome. A justification can always be cooked up. However, for this to happen there needs to be demand for that change among the adherents.
 
frustrated progressive,
Egalitarianism in Christianity wasn`t done away with by Paul. Even for episcopal hierarchy to establish itself, it took more than another century. Various heresies of the 4th century attest to the immune reaction to the state-sponsored variety of Christianity, but the latter of course grew faster because it was able to attract millions of opportunists.
And still, and even in spite of much more than a millennium of anti-egalitarian church rule, Christianity`s egalitarian impulses were still felt throughout history repeatedly: Paulicians, Waldensians, Taborite Hussites, Müntzer`s radical Reformation, the Levellers etc., and some might say they are still alive even today.

And communalism was one important feature of the early Christian movement, not the only one - while in Mazdakism, it was even more central.

I would say it´s a safe bet that you couldn`t have just turned Mazdakism into a tamed reform theology in the 6th or even in the 7th centuries.

Upon reviewing your post, I agree with you in that communal ownership is practically inherent to the religion. Thank you for your help.
 
A problem about Mazdakism is that, to my knowledge, we have relatively little reliable knowledge about it.
Generally speaking, contemporary written sources about the Sasanids are not abundant.
Historical narrative come largely from Islamic times. This means that they were written some centuries after the facts, and that they often reflect opinions, concerns and interests pretty far removed from what the average peasant under the Sasanid rulers felt or thought.
This is of course a general problem for pre-modern times, but it is particularly acute in pre-Islamic Iran. A LOT of contemporary records are either lost or poorly preserved.
I am not an expert on this particular topic, although I really wish I knew more (btw, I would be grateful to anyone who could point to accessible up-to-date scholarship), but I feel that a lot of the emphasis on "communistic" tendencies in Mazdakism might be source bias - of course, from the perspective of the people writing them, as a negative feature. Especially considering that the court seemingly did, for a time, support it, which sounds odd if communal property was really a core point (perhaps land reform was at stake? I don't know). If it is true that the movement had Gnostic influences (I've read conflicting claims on that), then Gnosis was generally hardly egalitarian.
Also, I am under the impression that it is difficult to define what is "inherent" to Mazdakism, since it was probably rather vague ideologically; anyway, it sounds like a particular interpretation of Mazdaic faith, not a specifically structured religion.
 
Top