54 International Journal of Cultic Studies Vol. 4, 2013
proposed limited their economic alterations to
the exterior of the economy and did not change
relationship between an individual’s labor and
the economic product.125
All three groups utilized this form of
communism. First, Josephus described how the
Essenes practiced this basic form:
Contemptuous of wealth, they [the
Essenes] are communists to perfection,
and none of them will be found to be
better off than the rest: their rule is that
novices admitted to the sect must
surrender their property to the order, so
that among them all neither humiliating
poverty nor excessive wealth is ever
seen, but each man’s possessions go into
the pool and as with brothers their entire
property belongs to them all.126
Therefore, even to an outsider such as Josephus,
the Essenes’ communism stood out as a
challenge to their surroundings.127
After the Anabaptists had rebelled and gained
control of Munster, they proposed a similar
system of communism. The community
leadership confiscated all the property of
Munster’s emigrants and redistributed it
amongst the community. The Anabaptist leaders
set up central supply depots where they
systematically distributed goods amongst the
populace. To remove economic disparity, they
destroyed all the account books and contracts
present in the community.128 In addition,
Matthys violently punished dissenters through
exile, imprisonment, and even public
execution.129 The theocratic government had
125 Bax criticized the Christian practice of almsgiving in much the
same way (Bax, “Christianity and Socialism” Bax, “Socialist
Ethics and Private Charity”). He described almsgiving as a way in
which capitalism reifies itself. He maintained that
Wealthy Churchmen and Nonconformists, please note
Socialism, on the contrary, does not profess to believe in private
charity or almsgiving as the solution of the social problem at all,
or as the cure of any social ill whatever, and consequently does
not reckon almsgiving as in any special sense a Socialist virtue.
(Bax, “Socialist Ethics and Private Charity”)
126 War, II, p. 125.
127 There is also evidence that the Essenes’ religious and
communalistic practices were reinforced through the threat of
expulsion (Baumgarten, “The Avoidance of the Death Penalty in
Qumran Law”).
128 Cohn, p. 264.
129 Cohn, p. 263–269.
confiscated all money in the community and had
taken over the payment of individuals for their
work.130 Eventually, the leaders of Munster
hoped to eliminate money and private property:
“[A]s Bockelson [one of the Munster leaders]
later expressed it—‘all things were to be in
common, there was to be no private property and
nobody was to do anymore work, but simply
trust in God.’”131
Jim Jones and his Peoples Temple left for
Guyana to implement their own brand of
communism. In the beginning, most sources
agree that Jones’ communist experiment
experienced some limited success.132 The
communal and socialist aspects of the
community allowed Jonestown to virtually run
itself.133 The community had developed an
advanced individual-based education system, it
grew food systematically and efficiently, and the
communal supply centers distributed goods
efficiently and relatively equally.134 The
commune was ethnically diverse, most members
came from poor backgrounds, and the
inhabitants truly felt they were building a model
for future socialist communities—a model for
hinterland development.135 This attitude existed
despite the harsh punishments and difficult
working conditions.136 For instance, Jones
regularly punished members for the most minor
of discretions, such as one’s complaining about
life in Jonestown, by placing the accused on the
“learning crew” (hard labor), subjecting them to
public beatings, or drugging them.137
Nonetheless, many viewed life in Jonestown as
better than their previous lives in American
ghettos.138
The Essenes, Anabaptists, and Peoples Temple
never successfully changed the fundamental way
they produced goods. Even though each group
displayed an ability to share the products they
130 Cohn, p. 265.
131 Cohn, p. 265–266.
132 For example, Hall, p. 235 Reiterman with Jacobs, p. 345
Scheeres, p. 74 Steele, p. 33.
133 Reiterman with Jacobs, p. 345.
134 Reiterman with Jacobs, p. 346–347.
135 Hall, p. 236 Reiterman with Jacobs, p. 348.
136 Reiterman with Jacobs, p. 349.
137 See Scheeres for countless examples of punishments handed out
by Jones and other members of the Peoples Temple in both San
Francisco and Jonestown.
138 Scheeres, p. 256.
proposed limited their economic alterations to
the exterior of the economy and did not change
relationship between an individual’s labor and
the economic product.125
All three groups utilized this form of
communism. First, Josephus described how the
Essenes practiced this basic form:
Contemptuous of wealth, they [the
Essenes] are communists to perfection,
and none of them will be found to be
better off than the rest: their rule is that
novices admitted to the sect must
surrender their property to the order, so
that among them all neither humiliating
poverty nor excessive wealth is ever
seen, but each man’s possessions go into
the pool and as with brothers their entire
property belongs to them all.126
Therefore, even to an outsider such as Josephus,
the Essenes’ communism stood out as a
challenge to their surroundings.127
After the Anabaptists had rebelled and gained
control of Munster, they proposed a similar
system of communism. The community
leadership confiscated all the property of
Munster’s emigrants and redistributed it
amongst the community. The Anabaptist leaders
set up central supply depots where they
systematically distributed goods amongst the
populace. To remove economic disparity, they
destroyed all the account books and contracts
present in the community.128 In addition,
Matthys violently punished dissenters through
exile, imprisonment, and even public
execution.129 The theocratic government had
125 Bax criticized the Christian practice of almsgiving in much the
same way (Bax, “Christianity and Socialism” Bax, “Socialist
Ethics and Private Charity”). He described almsgiving as a way in
which capitalism reifies itself. He maintained that
Wealthy Churchmen and Nonconformists, please note
Socialism, on the contrary, does not profess to believe in private
charity or almsgiving as the solution of the social problem at all,
or as the cure of any social ill whatever, and consequently does
not reckon almsgiving as in any special sense a Socialist virtue.
(Bax, “Socialist Ethics and Private Charity”)
126 War, II, p. 125.
127 There is also evidence that the Essenes’ religious and
communalistic practices were reinforced through the threat of
expulsion (Baumgarten, “The Avoidance of the Death Penalty in
Qumran Law”).
128 Cohn, p. 264.
129 Cohn, p. 263–269.
confiscated all money in the community and had
taken over the payment of individuals for their
work.130 Eventually, the leaders of Munster
hoped to eliminate money and private property:
“[A]s Bockelson [one of the Munster leaders]
later expressed it—‘all things were to be in
common, there was to be no private property and
nobody was to do anymore work, but simply
trust in God.’”131
Jim Jones and his Peoples Temple left for
Guyana to implement their own brand of
communism. In the beginning, most sources
agree that Jones’ communist experiment
experienced some limited success.132 The
communal and socialist aspects of the
community allowed Jonestown to virtually run
itself.133 The community had developed an
advanced individual-based education system, it
grew food systematically and efficiently, and the
communal supply centers distributed goods
efficiently and relatively equally.134 The
commune was ethnically diverse, most members
came from poor backgrounds, and the
inhabitants truly felt they were building a model
for future socialist communities—a model for
hinterland development.135 This attitude existed
despite the harsh punishments and difficult
working conditions.136 For instance, Jones
regularly punished members for the most minor
of discretions, such as one’s complaining about
life in Jonestown, by placing the accused on the
“learning crew” (hard labor), subjecting them to
public beatings, or drugging them.137
Nonetheless, many viewed life in Jonestown as
better than their previous lives in American
ghettos.138
The Essenes, Anabaptists, and Peoples Temple
never successfully changed the fundamental way
they produced goods. Even though each group
displayed an ability to share the products they
130 Cohn, p. 265.
131 Cohn, p. 265–266.
132 For example, Hall, p. 235 Reiterman with Jacobs, p. 345
Scheeres, p. 74 Steele, p. 33.
133 Reiterman with Jacobs, p. 345.
134 Reiterman with Jacobs, p. 346–347.
135 Hall, p. 236 Reiterman with Jacobs, p. 348.
136 Reiterman with Jacobs, p. 349.
137 See Scheeres for countless examples of punishments handed out
by Jones and other members of the Peoples Temple in both San
Francisco and Jonestown.
138 Scheeres, p. 256.
