| Theory |
|
Communists Against Religion -- Part 11 April 23, 2005 by RedStar2000 |
It's been some time since I've put together a collection of posts on communists and religion...even though I've continued to post on the subject at various boards.
Thus, if you've been missing my "less than respectful" approach to the subject, here's another broad sampling.
Enjoy.
===============================
quote:
Instead of encouraging those millions of poor who find hope in their faith and organization and a global voice in their clergy, you put down their beliefs in order to make you feel more comfortable in your atheism. That's shameful, and embarrasses me to be a member here.
Their "hope" is false!
Now what?
Are you willing to encourage false hope because it "makes people feel better?"
What the hell kind of lefty are you???
Just who is really behaving shamefully here? Those who try, however difficult it may be, to tell people the truth...or those who prefer a comfortable lie?
-----------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on February 19, 2005
-----------------------------------------------------
quote:
It [religion] gives us morals. Science doesn't do that.
And a damn good thing it doesn't!
What good science does is much better...it informs us of the consequences of our decisions.
Of course, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions on this board, the "morals" that religions have "given us" are cruel, contemptible, and utterly beyond reason. They mostly revolve around an absolute reverence for authority and the conscious oppression of women and children.
"Morals" are and have always been a poisonous "gift" that deserve and have always deserved instant rejection.
Instead, when we want to decide "how to act" or "what's the best thing to do", science says "here's what's most likely to follow this or that action -- here are the potential consequences of what you propose to do". And the advice of science is not based on superstition but on real world experience.
That is something infinitely more useful.
quote:
But if it makes people a more harmonious, egalitarian society (as the religious left does) all the power to them.
*laughs*
Looked at scientifically, the influence of the Jesuit "liberation theologians" actually weakened the revolution in Nicaragua. Instead of a forthright struggle against the class enemy there, the Sandinistas actually let them back into power.
Well, why not? They were all "brothers in Christ", weren't they?
-----------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on February 20, 2005
-----------------------------------------------------
quote:
If people took the morals provided by Jesus Christ, I've argued this many a time, the world would be socialist.
Bah!
quote:
The Protestant work ethic comes to mind.
Good grief! Do you know where the "Protestant work ethic" comes from?
The rise of capitalism!
It was the Swiss Calvinists who asserted that worldly prosperity was a "sign" of "inner righteousness".
quote:
Honour thy MOTHER and thy father. Sounds like a large contempt for women to me.
quote (Exodus 20:12):
Honour thy FATHER and thy mother...
Your Bible knows who comes first...even if you don't.
quote:
But people know the consequence of shooting a gun, they do anyway. Honestly, I'd rather not die from murder, and whatever means gets people to prevent it, please ensure it.
Since "thou shalt not kill" has never worked...perhaps other means are in order.
quote:
I don't think the Jesuits were left-wing...
They sure were and are...at least by Catholic standards. The Sandinista government even had a Jesuit in the cabinet.
Try this...The Jesuits : the Society of Jesus and the betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church by Malachi Martin, New York, N.Y. : Linden Press/Simon & Schuster, c 1987, ISBN: 0671545051
If that cheerful work doesn't cure you of any illusions about "liberation theology"...nothing will.
-----------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on February 20, 2005
-----------------------------------------------------
quote:
...to deny people the right to freedom of worship does transgress a basic human right.
Oh? In what way?
If you are familiar with Marxism, then you should be aware of the fact that "basic human rights" are a product of social conditions...and are different from one kind of society to another.
The "freedom to own slaves" was once considered a "basic human right" -- the Confederacy went to war to defend it.
A "basic human right" that is presently emerging is the right to be open about one's sexual orientation...less than a half-century ago, that was considered "criminal" in every country.
And so it goes..."basic human rights" are always changing.
Communism by definition abolishes that "basic human right" to own property and exploit the labor of those who don't.
Horrors!
So why do you think that the "basic human right" of wallowing in superstitious servility deserves to be preserved?
quote:
The problem is that many of the poor are religious.
Well, that means at some point they will have to make a choice, doesn't it?
Stop being poor or keep your religion.
Because you sure can't have both!
quote:
Personally I'd make the deal with the Churches, 'You stay out of politics, and we'll stay out of your churches.'
Don't go into business for yourself...the real deal-makers would eat you for breakfast. *laughs*
Seriously, you completely overlook why churches cannot "stay out of politics" no matter what they may promise.
What, after all, is the real purpose of a church, any church? Is it not to enforce "the Will of God" on earth? Historically, what has that always turned out to mean in practice?
1. Get our morality enacted into law.
2. Get members of our faith into positions of political power.
3. Get our church declared as the only legal church.
4. Use state power to persecute our enemies.
5. If possible, get the leaders of our church made into absolute dictators.
You expect them to "stop trying to do that" because you've "made a deal with them"? *laughs*
You can't "make a deal" with reactionary ideas...we have to struggle against them until they are completely discredited.
We have to utterly defeat them "by any means necessary".
-----------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on February 27, 2005
-----------------------------------------------------
quote:
Hmm, helping the downtrodden, eliminating excess, decency, equality, helping people, being humble, sacrifice for others ... that sounds like communism to me, and yet, much like Christian values as well.
Hmm, how about those "other" Christian "values"? You know, complete obedience to the clerical hierarchy, burning witches and heretics, persecuting scientists and other non-believers, launching crusades to grab this or that piece of desirable real estate, slavery, oppression of women and gay people, violence against children...stuff like that.
It's all "in the Bible"...which means they can bring any of it up whenever they think the moment is opportune.
quote:
Would Jesus not enjoy the equality, the decency, the peace and the love of humankind that many believe will amount [?] during communism? Would Muhammad? Would Buddha?
An invitation to some rather silly speculation. However, since you asked, I think all three of those eminent "holy guys" would be utterly horrified by communism.
Not just the atheism...but the open sexual immorality!
Thanks again, by the way, for illustrating a parallel that I've often drawn attention to: the folks who argue for "tolerance of superstition" do so because they fundamentally sympathize with superstition.
Even if they can't bring themselves to actually argue that superstition is "true", they wish it were.
I think that's the real origin of all that "Jesus was a commie" crapola.
quote:
How about the right of every human being to decide the fate or nonfate of their soul?
But, you see, there's no such thing as a "soul". Therefore, what you're defending is on the same plane as the "right" of "every human" to grow fairy wings.
quote:
How about the right of every person to, if they so wish, to pursue religion in their lives to make them feel whole?
Instead of just "feeling whole", how about the "right of every person" to be whole? To live in a non-alienating society?
Instead of "pie in the sky when you die", how about real pie that you can make and eat and enjoy right here and now?
And moreover with the realization that every bite you take does not mean that someone else is going hungry. They're eating real pie too!
quote:
Freedom to worship as a right? Damn right!
Damn wrong!
quote:
Yes...the rich sure don't have any religion at all.
Well, some do...but for the most part, they understand that religion is and has always been a useful tool for keeping the people down.
That's precisely why it is so imperative that the people abandon religion in all its varieties...so that this ruling class weapon can no longer be used.
quote:
Would it not be more appropriate to take religious ideas and examples and intermix it with communism?
Would it "not be more appropriate" to take a container of salt and a container of sugar and "intermix" those ingredients into a single package?
So you can make salty coffee and sweet "freedom fries"?
No.
There is no future in attempting to "trick" people into supporting communism...indeed, such a perspective makes a lie of the whole communist project.
Remember? What we want is the self-emancipation of the working class. That can't happen unless the working class fully understands what is at stake.
Manipulating people into "supporting communism" is a sucker play; someone else will come along and manipulate them right back into supporting capitalism.
quote:
Get some religion on our side for a change.
Well, I suppose we could always fake a "newly-discovered gospel"...it's not as if the ones that already exist aren't also fakes.
And the Lord sayeth unto me: go, proclaim communism throughout the land and to all the people thereof!
Think you can say that and keep a straight face? Think the people who hear you say that will refrain from rolling on the floor, laughing their asses off?
quote:
To hell with what Marx says!
An appropriate destination considering your other views.
But I remind you that before you send Marx's ideas off to the "nether regions", you really are obligated to provide a good reason for doing so...at least on this board.
You have not done that thus far.
-----------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on February 28, 2005
-----------------------------------------------------
quote:
But regardless of my personal views, I do view religion as a basic human right, you can disagree with that, but freedom of choice is inalienable, at least when it comes to certain aspects of the private life...
You understand here that you're not making an argument...you're just saying something is true because I say it's true.
All human societies allow for "freedom of choice" in some things and prohibit certain choices in other matters.
You are not allowed to sacrifice a virgin to the Sun God...not even if she's willing to be sacrificed.
Understand?
quote:
Nazi Germany signed a pact with the Catholic church, allowing the church to preach, as long as it stayed out of politics.
But the Catholic church did not "stay out of politics". They were deeply involved throughout the Third Reich...almost always in enthusiastic support of Nazism.
They fussed a little, here and there. But on the most important issue -- the Holocaust -- they were as silent as a tomb. (And, yes, they very definitely knew it was happening.)
After the war, the Vatican eagerly assisted especially infamous Nazis (as long as they were Catholics) to escape to Latin America.
The Protestants (Lutherans) were even worse, by the way.
quote:
People can be offered both spiritual and real-world fulfillment.
It would be fun to work out the details of that suggestion.
Atheists get real food and drink; godsuckers get to live on "the holy spirit". *laughs*
An empirical test of the validity of religion...though a harsh one, it would produce results.
quote:
Oh, redstar2000 ... all religions and denominations are not the same.
Yeah...reminds me of a line from Woody Allen. It went something like "There are really terrible things like poverty and hunger...and then the really horrible things like terminal brain cancer."
I think that all religions if they get the chance will behave abominably.
But some haven't had the chance...yet.
quote:
Sexual Immorality? If you wish to do that, I won't stop you. Atheism? You can be an atheist if you wish, I won't stop you, but don't tell others what they can and can't be.
This on behalf of 60 centuries of superstition "telling people what they can and can't be" and killing them if they don't obey???
No. I don't believe your "promise" that you "won't stop me".
Religion has had all of recorded history to demonstrate its "love" and "compassion" and "tolerance".
Time's up!
quote:
Wow. How do you KNOW this? You are truly amazing.
Thanks.
But it's not "rocket science", you know. Humans have done a ton of research into the human body and brain over the last couple of centuries.
Evidence for "souls"? Zero!
That's good enough for me.
quote:
I mean to convert them.
Bad approach. You're just making communism into another "religion".
The point is not to get people to "believe in communism" -- the objective is to get people to think like communists...to be rational, skeptical, and rebellious in their whole outlook on life.
quote:
If we can gain support from religious people, why not use it? Why turn them away, and essentially, into enemies?
It's not a matter of "turning them into enemies", they are enemies!
They comprehend -- a lot more clearly than many of us -- that communism means the end of the god racket. Rational, skeptical, and rebellious people will not submit to superstition...and the godsuckers know that.
There's nothing necessarily contradictory between the absence of private property and religion per se (as long as it's understood that the clergy get first crack at the goodies). But modern communism is totally unacceptable to the religious -- the god racket must be preserved.
quote:
We must realize we are messing with people's deepest beliefs. A drastic change in this could be disastrous.
A risk we'll have to take.
quote:
Familiar with the French Revolution?
Moderately. The radical bourgeoisie attempted to make a religion out of "Reason". Not a bad idea under the circumstances.
quote:
What is the real issue here? What is the big fear of religion? It is reactionary? Maybe.
No "maybe" about it.
Remember, we have 6,000 years of experience to work with here. The evidence is overwhelming!
quote:
It likes morals? Yes...
And will, if it gets the chance, kill you if you fail to conform to their particular "morals" for any reason.
And what "morals"!?!
They'd make a simple barbarian blush with shame!
quote:
It will bring back capitalism?
It would try! Actually, religion prefers despotism with themselves as the despots. They try for as much of that as they can..."by any means necessary".
quote:
My "fairy-wings" are going to fly me away now ... saves on gas.
Watch out for demons!
quote:
Does using Tarot cards qualify as a religion?
No...but taking money from people to "read them" is fraud.
------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on March 4, 2005
------------------------------------------------
quote:
I feel faith is an individual's decision, as is their taste in music or favorite color, as long as it isn't imposed on others.
It's a little more serious than that, I'm afraid.
One of the imperatives of "faith" is that you are supposed to "impose it on others...for their own good". A true believer is told by every "holy book" that they must "save souls" even if people don't want to "be saved".
If you like green and I prefer orange, neither of us is harmed by the other's preference. If you like one musical genre and I another, neither of us, once again, can be harmed by our differing tastes. There's lots of cultural differences and personal differences that are completely harmless.
But religion is not one of them. It's not "trivial" or "inconsequential". It's as serious as a heart attack -- people are willing to both kill and die for the supremacy of their faith.
I know that many believers profess to be "tolerant" of other religions and even atheists...but I don't believe them. I think their "tolerance" is a tactical retreat...something they feel they "have to say" because they're "on the defensive" in the "west".
I think religion shows its true colors when they do have the power (or think they do) to "cut loose" and really "run wild"...and it ain't pretty.
quote (Shining Path):
The government also pushes for plans of free labor and more "aid" with the direct ideological, political and organizational participation of the reactionary Catholic Church, which is playing a counterrevolutionary role in the People's War. In some regions of the jungle and in Ayacucho, for example, there are priests that train and lead the Army's paramilitary rondas. Among these paramilitary priests the most notorious is the archbishop of Huamanga "Cristiani" of Opus Dei, and the infamous U.S. born killer-priest known as "Father Mariano."
http://www.blythe.org/peru-pcp/intro/intro1.htm
And from "the other side of the world" comes this...
quote (BBC):
'Honour killing' shocks Germany
An impromptu shrine has been created at the place where Hatun Surucu was gunned down.
There are flowers, candles, messages of support and photographs of the 23-year-old Turkish woman, who died of multiple bullet wounds to the head and chest.
The police have arrested her three brothers, in the belief that Mrs. Surucu was the latest victim in a series of so-called "honour killings" that have taken place in Berlin in recent months.
"She had no other enemies. This murder bears all the hallmarks of an honour killing," says police psychologist Karl Mollenhauer.
"In Islamic culture, the woman is the bearer of the family decency. She must maintain the honour of the family. Men must defend that honour." If the police are right, Mrs Surucu was the sixth victim of honour killings among Berlin's 200,000-strong Turkish community in as many months.
He says the problem has been exacerbated by the German authorities turning a blind eye to it.
"For instance, when a Turkish man beat his wife, he didn't get the same punishment as when a German did it. They tried to explain it with the culture, the traditions, and with the religion.
But the practice continues among Germany's Turkish and Arab minorities. The police list 45 cases in the last eight years. One woman was drowned in her bath, another stabbed to death by her husband in front of their three-year-old daughter.
Every year dozens of women and girls, some as young as 13, run away to avoid arranged marriages - some in fear for their lives.
"All these girls who come to us are locked in, in the house, by their families. They only go to school because they have to by law - otherwise they wouldn't be allowed. They have to stay at home and cook, and care for the sisters and brothers. The parents don't accept that the girl decides anything by herself."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/4345459.stm
Finally, you have to remember this: people's minds are not neatly divided into "air-tight" compartments. What you think about one thing affects what you think about other things. Someone with racist prejudices against Black people is probably not going to have a high opinion of other ethnic/cultural groups with darker skin tones than his own.
Likewise, if you sincerely believe in a "divine order" of things that "must be obeyed", then your politics are going to reflect that...sooner or later.
In the peasant revolutions characteristic of the "third world", it is obvious that many believers will take an active and occasionally even a leading role in them. But should a particular revolution be victorious, I think it can be shown that the faithful will immediately become the most conservative wing of the new society...the most resistant to the really fundamental changes that the revolution must make.
For example, they will be the ones to say "sure, land reform...but only for land that the rich are not already using". And "sure, build schools for the kids...but they should be run by the Church".
There was a heavy Jesuit presence in the Sandinista revolutionary government in Nicaragua (the Jesuits are "big" on "liberation theology"). I think they played a key role in the gross blunder of allowing pro-imperialist parties (financed by the CIA) to run in Nicaraguan elections. Understand, I can't prove that...I would need to be fluent in Spanish and have access to the relevant documents concerning how that decision was made.
But it would "fit"...the Jesuit material that I have seen makes it clear that "liberation theology" does not want socialism (much less communism!) but simply a more "humane" version of capitalism with a bigger social role for the Church.
quote:
If we shun those who [have] faith in something, we will shun the third world, and the very people we are FIGHTING for. How can we fight for them, when we are so unyielding about religion?
That's actually two questions.
1. For communists who are in the "third world"...their obligation is to patiently explain to the peasantry what the social role of religion really is -- and not to "impose atheism" by "command". On the other hand, as Shining Path, FARC, and others have done, they do need to directly attack the priests and other clergy who support the old order.
2. For communists in the "west"...our obligation is to do whatever we can to weaken imperialism at home. In the U.S., the biggest base of popular support for imperialism is Christian fundamentalism (a.k.a. Christian fascism) -- which means that attacking Christianity should be one of our major priorities.
Sad to say, we haven't been very good at that up to now. You'll know that things are changing for the better here when some prominent Christian fascist makes a public appearance and is greeted by a few thousand angry demonstrators telling him to take his "God" and shove it!
May I live to see the day!
-------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on March 25, 2005
-------------------------------------------------
This is an interesting non-communist approach to spreading atheism.
quote (Dan Barker):
However, ridicule is rarely effective in changing someone's mind. No one likes to be laughed at. No one wants to be told they are a loser. How do you respond to ridicule? Combativeness creates enemies. The purpose of an evangelistic atheist should be to make a friend. To win them over to the reasonableness of freethought. You can't browbeat a person into friendship. "Onward, Atheist Soldiers" is the opposite of freethought.
Barker stands on Mount Olympus, far above the class struggle. From his vantage point, reason is "just better" than unreason...and since he's a "good guy", he wants to win people over to reason without regard to the sources and motives of unreason.
I don't think that he grasps the material reasons for the existence of superstition and its perpetuation.
To him, atheism is a reasonable "fix" for unreasonable superstition...like Firefox is a reasonable fix for the gross inadequacies of Internet Explorer.
It's not atheist "combativeness" that "creates enemies" among the faithful.
They are enemies.
quote:
If any of your religious friends or relatives eventually becomes a freethinker, it won't be because they were humiliated. It won't be because you are angry, concerned, or knowledgeable. It will be because they are thinking for themselves.
In this, I agree with him. People "convert" themselves.
The question, from a communist standpoint, is which approach is best.
A "warm & friendly" approach seeks to "ease" people into atheism...perhaps in gentle stages. First, show the believer the more horrible parts of his religion and get him to give those up...and then show him that even the "good parts" are false...and he'll conclude that none of it, in the end, can be rationally defended.
A combative approach is "shocking!" It's "a fire alarm in the night" that demands attention and response. It slams into the edifice of the believer's whole system like a wrecking ball. And the believer's immediate response is usually to flee from such a total assault on everything he's always held sacred.
But I think it has an effect that the "gentle approach" lacks. It burns the question into the believer's mind in an unforgettable way: what if that atheist bastard is right?
Some might argue that it's a matter of "individual temperament"...both of the atheist and the believer. Some atheists are "gentle" and so are some believers -- so the "gentle approach" might be most appropriate.
I, of course, am not the least bit "gentle" when it comes to what I think are really reactionary ideas. Whenever some aggressive godsucker comes to this board, I'm ready to "slug it out"!
You know that somewhere around 10 per cent of American adults describe themselves as atheists/agnostics to pollsters...and yet, aside from a few people like this Barker chap, you'd think the whole damn country was showering daily in the "blood of the lamb".
I think the reluctance of atheists to directly confront superstition is simply deplorable...and probably one of the important contributing factors to the weakness of communism in this country.
quote:
If you feel that the Christian is proselytizing you, then be respectful...
No, no, no! Never be "respectful" of that which is unworthy of respect!
Have you accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior?
No...I am a grown-up and have no time to waste on childish fantasies!
quote:
There are many believers who seek out unbelievers as a "mission field." They enjoy having someone to kick around, some opportunity to flex their righteous muscles. Don't encourage this. It only makes them stronger. They can go back to their church and announce, "I did battle with the Devil today!"
They get into a kicking match with me, they'll have to go back and report "and the Devil won that round." *laughs*
quote:
Counter the stereotype that atheists are merely destroying things. Emphasize that we all want the same things: truth, values, honesty, beauty, meaning. "We both want what is good," you can say.
As a communist, I do "want to destroy things"...like capitalism, for example.
Nor do I think that believers "want what is good"...they nearly all either want what we have now, or a little better version of what we have now, or a much worse version of what we have now.
quote:
Agree with them as much as possible.
I recommend the opposite approach; challenge their ability to find their ass in the dark with both hands and a flashlight.
quote:
Obviously, freethought often involves direct and strong criticism of religion, and many believers will take it personally, accusing us of being abusive or hateful. Remind the person that you are not attacking them.
I've tried that one on this board...makes no impression at all! To the superstitious, an attack on their beliefs is an "attack on them"...and "hateful & abusive" as well.
Since you're going to be hit with that accusation no matter what you say, go ahead and let them have it full blast.
Let them know that you really do hate reactionary ideas and the people who defend them.
quote:
Why should they give up comfortable traditions, hope of eternal life, and the security of absolute truth? The only possible bait we have is the freedom of thinking for yourself.
Yeah. But as communists, we have something more to offer...a shot at not just thinking for yourself but living a real life for yourself -- instead of for a class of bosses.
quote:
The fact that indoctrination can be eliminated ... The fact that there is no universal dictator, no sin, no cosmic guilt, and no hell ... The fact that human beings possess the potential for good ... The fact that love can be truly shared between self-respecting peers with both feet on the ground ... The fact that human reason is capable ... The fact that intellectual integrity brings the only honest peace of mind ... The fact that there is no God ... All of this is truly Good News.
That, I must concede, is well said.
--------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on March 26, 2005
--------------------------------------------------
quote:
The way to end religion is not proselytizing for atheism as "the religion of the modern bourgeois" as Engels put it; it is social revolution, which will end the material conditions which produce religion.
The social revolution as deus ex machina, eh?
Well, you have a point...over a really extended period of time, all sorts of things might well be forgotten since there would be no longer a material basis to support their existence.
But I think you (and Marx and Engels) drastically underestimate the "sticking power" of reactionary ideologies and their supporters.
You (and they) think that reactionary ideas will just "wither away". But that's not how things work.
People have to struggle against and defeat reactionary ideas...that's how material changes are manifested in social changes.
It doesn't "just happen".
quote:
The exploiting classes - regardless of religion - are enemies. Working people - regardless of religion - are not.
Your views here strike me as very "old-fashioned". Do you think that workers "cannot" be reactionary "by definition"?
What of workers who become cops or mercenaries or scabs? What of workers who are racists...who become Klansmen or even Nazis? What of workers who attack immigrants?
For that matter, what of the extremely rare member of "the exploiting classes" who defects to the side of the proletariat? (Hi there, Fred!)
Or do you agree that some workers can become reactionary but are nevertheless "not our enemies"?
If you'd said "not our main enemies"...well, yeah, I could live with that.
But as things stand, it seems to me that you are wildly over-simplifying the real complexity of class struggle -- in the course of which, some workers are and will be our bitter enemies.
-------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on March 26, 2005
-------------------------------------------------
quote:
Those who seek "common ground," whatever their intentions, only can hope to be pulled along at the left edge of a spectrum that keeps hurtling to the right. Rather than attempting to "de- polarize" the country we must re-polarize, reversing the dynamic so that the majority of people in this country, including millions of religious people who believe in God, are won to stand against the imposition of a Christian fascist theocracy.
-- emphasis added.
It seems to be that trying to organize "Christians Against Christian Fascism" is rather on the same order as trying to organize "Anti-Semites Against Nazism".
I can't say outright that it will "never" happen...but the obstacles are pretty obvious.
Religion and fascism go together like...well, con and man. The Catholic clergy in the Third Reich were warmly supportive of Nazism and the Protestant clergy even more so.
I really don't see any alternative short of a sustained campaign to drive religion out of public life.
And that would mean confronting the Christian fascists in the same way we'd confront Nazis or Klansmen...or prominent supporters of the war in Iraq.
quote:
WE NEED A LIBERATING MORALITY
This reactionary outlook is preying upon people's need for meaning and morality in a constantly changing and increasingly insecure world. We too can meet this need--in much more profound and liberating ways. But we must recognize that morality cannot be forged piecemeal, just through a collection of different issues.
While the Christian fascists offer meaning through oppressive Biblical myths, we must grasp what Bob Avakian is getting at when he recently said, "What we think is right and good and principled depends on how we view that, how we view what kind of society it is that is both possible but also desirable."
I question the utility of adopting the enemy's terminology -- "meaning and morality" -- in this struggle.
Our ideas certainly are far more "meaningful and moral" than those of our enemies...but if we start using words like that, we risk generating an enormous amount of confusion.
It reminds me of the old American Communist Party saying that "communism is 20th century Americanism" and claiming to be "the real patriots" during and after World War II.
Such "tricks" rarely fool very many people for very long. Worse, I think they demoralize the people who really want something different.
Perhaps we should borrow a phrase from Marx himself in this fight. He once remarked, almost in passing, that humanity would choose between socialism and barbarism.
The Christian fascists are ideological barbarians -- and I think we should frame them in those terms. No "legitimacy" should be conceded to their priorities...not even verbally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on March 22, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I don't think its fair to lump the entire religious community into the fascist camp like that - I don't know if that's your intention, but it certainly sounds like it.
Revolutionary politics is not about "fairness"...it's about telling the truth to people in plain language.
Even when that truth is "upsetting" and "alienating".
The major religions that exist today arose either during barbarism (nomadism) or hydraulic despotism/slavery (mistakenly called by Marx "Oriental despotism" due to the Euro-centric prejudices of his era). The ideas contained within modern religions are actually reflections of the class relationships that existed 15 or more centuries ago.
Thus, it's not just a matter of religion being wrong because it's idealist instead of materialist. Religion is reactionary to the core because it all originated long before capitalism and even feudalism.
Of course, it has been adapted over the centuries. The high priest-king was replaced by the emperor who was then replaced by the feudal lord and then by the successful capitalist/military despot. But the message has remained constant: obedience to authority is commanded by "God".
Now, you can argue that many modern Christians don't take this message "seriously" any longer...they "don't let" their religious views have "any effect" on their other views.
And, on occasion, there might even be some truth to that.
But as long as one sincerely believes that there is "a divine order" which "must be obeyed"...then the seeds of despotism are there and can spread at any time.
Religious people are all potential fascists...and more than a few have gone "whole hog" in that direction.
This even applies to "progressive" Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. Though they go to great efforts to repudiate the more obviously barbaric tenets and practices of their faith, that "core idea" -- obedience to authority -- is still there.
For example, that "small group of Catholic clergy" who began the demonstrations against the army's torture school in Georgia still think that women who have abortions should go to prison and the doctors who perform those abortions are guilty of "genocide". Why? The pope said so!
Obedience to authority.
quote:
I can't see what good that refusing to unite with progressive religious people could do, other than further driving away and alienating them from our politics.
Why not make the same argument with regard to "uniting with Democrats"? Or "uniting with progressive capitalists"? Or "progressive" racists?
If you "unite" with reactionaries in more than a superficial way, then you simply strengthen reaction, regardless of your intentions. You send the message that people should "choose" between a "progressive variant" of reaction and a genuinely revolutionary alternative...and that those are equally "legitimate" choices.
It's true that in the twists and turns of political life, we will sometimes find ourselves "on the same side" of a particular issue as some reactionaries. That's unavoidable. But even then, I would try to formulate a line that would make it clear that we were not "unified" with those reactionaries...that their presence was a historical accident while our presence was a matter of revolutionary principle.
If a bourgeois liberal opposes Christian fascism, fine. But bourgeois liberalism is still reactionary...and it is wrong to say anything that would imply the contrary.
The same would be even more true about "Christians against Christian fascism".
The Christian who opposes Christian fascism is acting from expediency...he thinks that this is not the right time.
But watch and see. If we do fall into the pit of Christian fascism, that "progressive" bastard will be singing in the choir and burning people for witchcraft right along with the rest of them.
Obedience to authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on March 23, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither of my two pro-RCP critics took the trouble to seriously dispute my points.
That's disappointing.
Instead, they went scrounging through the archives to dig up a godsucker here or there who "did something progressive"...simply ignoring the historical track record of religion altogether.
I'm surprised they didn't dig up the bones of Thomas Mόnzer to wave in my face.
Guess what? You know that there were even SS men who found the holocaust repugnant...to the point of deliberately helping a handful of Jews escape from trains bound for Auschwitz.
Want to call them "progressive Nazis"?
Do you imagine that the social role of Nazism is in some sense "transformed" by the occasional "good Nazi"?
Do you imagine that the social role of religion is in some sense "transformed" by the occasional "progressive believer"?
What planet did you guys say you were from???
quote:
And honestly, have you never read any articles in the RW where the progressive actions of non-communists are upheld for the good, real-world effects that they have, even while the limitations of the ideologies behind them may be examined and criticized? Is the concept of "critical support" just totally revisionist to you?
How about this? Can you imagine supporting some non-communists who do something genuinely progressive without saying or implying that they are actually "progressives" or "natural allies" of the revolution?
We both support the Iraqi resistance and hope they defeat U.S. imperialism, do we not? Even though they are saturated with medieval Islamic superstition, right? (Though not as much as the pro-American quislings.)
But would you want to get up in front of people and attempt to make an argument that you've found a "progressive variant" of Islamic fundamentalism? One that we "should unite with"???
Do you understand the distinction that I'm trying to get across?
1. Yes, there certainly are non-communist progressives with whom we might form genuine alliances. Clearly, they would be secular in their orientation and committed to some form of serious resistance to the despotism of capital.
2. And there are also reactionaries who might, for historical reasons, find themselves "on the same side" as us over a particular issue...but with whom no possibility of a genuine alliance exists.
That you accept the "sincerity" of preachers at face value suggests that you should take a knowledgeable friend along with you when you go to buy a used car.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on March 23, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I think this statement is ironic, in that it replicates that which it claims to be against. I'm sure you don't believe in a "divine order" redstar, at least by your own definitions, but you do believe in an order, which must be obeyed. In your order religion and all its adherents are counter revolutionary. In other posts you have suggested that they should be thoroughly subjugated and perhaps even killed. If your position doesn't itself bear the seeds of despotism then I have completely misunderstood you.
Why have you and the other RCP supporters lately become so evasive about this issue?
Let's say you were absolutely right -- I'm a "wanna-be despot".
What does that have to do with the arguments I raised about the social role of religion and its supporters?
If you think I have secret or even open despotic ambitions...then don't trust me in any position of authority! That's an easy one!
But what of your own ambition to set up a united front with "Christians Against Christian Fascism"?
What are we to make of people who think Christianity has "progressive features"...or at least "progressive followers"?
Talk about the issues...not about me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on March 24, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I don't know what RCP's ideas about religion are, so I don't pretend in this discussion to promote them.
Well, they're not an "official secret", are they? The article that began this thread -- and what I attempted to respond to -- suggests that the RCP has a mixed (you would call it "dialectical") view of religion...sometimes it's reactionary but "sometimes it's not".
And that does seem to be the view that you want to defend.
quote:
All I would say is that to discuss the social role of religion and then extrapolate that down to every person that believes in god is very mechanical, and constitutes a division fallacy. In other words you're saying the whole, X, has properties A, B, C. Therefore the parts of X have properties A, B, C. When shown evidence that contradicts this, you claim it's irrelevant because the social role of religion has the properties of A, B, C, and the argument starts all over going in circles from here to eternity.
The "default option" is that "the parts of X must have properties A, B, and C if X as a totality has those properties".
The "evidence" you offer to refute that is trivial...like the evidence for "good Nazis".
To make a real case for "progressive religion", you'd need a massive amount of evidence. You're up against at least 5,000 years of demonstrated reaction!
Or, and I'll admit that this is at least a possibility, you would have to offer a completely new hypothesis about the social role of religion in the period preceding the collapse of class society.
It would have to read something like: "Although religion has played an entirely reactionary role throughout recorded history, that role changes in the period immediately prior to the transition from class to classless society."
And then you would have to gather the modern evidence to support that hypothesis. You would have to show that religion in the most advanced capitalist countries "changes sides" and begins to attack the ruling classes "across the board"...not just a handful of believers here and there but in significant and growing numbers.
You see what you would need here? Sunday sermons all across the country blasting Bush & Company as "servants of the devil" who deserve to "burn in Hell". Religious radio and television stations bitterly attacking every feature of capitalist "culture" as "diabolical". Famous bishops and preachers publicly calling for "God's Help" on the side of the working class and against the proud and sinful ruling class. Instead of "God Bless America" banners on the sides of religious schools, they'd say "God Bless Iraq & Curse America for its Sins".
Do you imagine that anything like that is going to happen? Or is happening?
Communism is 21st Century Christianity! -- that's the sort of thing you'd expect to hear if religion had a significantly "progressive" component.
The silence is deafening.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on March 25, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
So you are claiming that individual people who believe in god are all reactionary because the social role of religion is reactionary.
To all intents and purposes, yes!
The "exceptions" are too trivial to matter.
They are like "good Nazis" (or maybe a better phrase would be "accidental Nazis" who didn't have "what it takes" to be real Nazis).
quote:
Was Einstein reactionary?
Was he religious? I don't think so. There are fragmentary quotes from him that can be interpreted as a crude sort of pantheism...but no one has ever suggested, to my knowledge, that he actually practiced any religion or took any of it at all seriously.
I think that, like all too many scientists, he simply wanted to avoid flak from the godsuckers and so made a few vaguely "religious" statements to deflect unwelcome attention.
quote:
Revolution on a mass scale cannot hope to require purity of ideology from everyone involved.
True...but the more "purity" you have, the better your chances!
A rational proletariat has a good chance of making a successful revolution. An irrational (believing) proletariat's chances are much worse...even if they win initially, they are all too likely to submit to despotism and, ultimately, the restoration of capitalism.
As we have seen.
quote:
Maybe religion as such is reactionary, but religious people are not by definition the enemy.
A subtle distinction in practice. Reactionaries are "by definition" people who advocate/defend reactionary ideas.
Some, of course, are much worse than others. A Christian fascist is (usually) much worse than a Christian "Liberal".
But the general "rule of thumb" is that those who advocate/defend reactionary ideas will behave in a reactionary fashion.
quote:
One thing that's become increasingly curious to me is that he never offers practical or contemporary examples of what people should be doing.
I don't do it very often...but I have done that. In the context of this thread, I have suggested on a number of occasions that public appearances by prominent Christian fascists should be greeted with hostile and raucous demonstrations...the way that we in SDS greeted prominent supporters of the war in Vietnam back in the 60s.
(Note that in New York City, the threatened appearance of a Hindu fascist generated a demonstration. Why can't we do that with our domestic Christian fascists?)
Perhaps that's "impractical"...but if it is, perhaps that's because most people in the "left" are still "mushy" about religion and don't grasp its reactionary character.
quote:
This is the problem with the anti-authoritarian method you are caught up in. There is intense focus on the ideas in people's heads and not their practical activity. Because you can't accept any mediative function, politically or philosophically, you end up out of your head because living people make living choices based on their living realities.
The reason I focus so "intensely" on the "ideas in people's heads" is because I find them highly correlated with what they actually do.
People don't just "live" (like bacteria)...they also "think". And when they think poorly or irrationally, they have a very strong tendency to act likewise.
quote:
I think the RCP is too harsh on the religious. If someone believes in God, but is willing to put up with organizational discipline and is deeply secular, then I think they can be a communist.
A good illustration of what I find myself criticizing all the time at the Revolutionary Left forums. How does one "believe in God" and yet "be deeply secular"?
Unity of opposites? Or just confusion.
I've long since conceded the hypothetical possibility that someone could be religious and yet also be pro-communist. I don't think that happens nearly as often as some maintain...but in a really large sample of believers, it almost certainly happens occasionally.
But I also maintain that it is necessarily a transient phenomenon...the individual will choose between communism and religion because the conflict between those two paradigms is, in the long run, insupportable. You cannot act in the real world as both a communist and a believer...for very long.
quote:
I think it's funny that Redstar is breaking their balls.
The "vanguard" must meet higher standards. *laughs*
quote:
In the meantime, whole sections of this country are DEEPLY religious and if the existence of god is the dividing line question, WE WILL LOSE.
Well, sure. Were you under the impression that we were winning?
My impression is that we're in about the same place as Russian revolutionaries were...in 1825.
Clearing away the godcrap is "part of our job" before "our 1917" if we are to have a real chance to win.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on March 26, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I won't wade into this right now...but I do want to point out that Redstar's views are connected with his assumption that little is possible now.
Little is possible now. Need I remind you how small and weak the forces that may be considered pro-revolutionary (by the most generous definition) are in the United States?
We're probably talking about 5,000 or fewer people in a country of nearly 300,000,000!
Even bourgeois liberalism in all its variants would be hard-pressed to come up with 5,000,000 adherents. And their numbers are falling...or at least that seems to be the case. Their traditional political party -- the Democrats -- now hold positions that were only found among Republicans a half-century ago.
And we need not belabor how far right the Republicans have moved.
We live in a period of reaction.
Will we at least do what is realistically possible in such a period...that's my question.
Such as confronting in a straightforward way the reactionary content of religious ideology amongst ourselves and our limited periphery.
quote:
His remark above "were you under the impression we were winning" is fleshed out more in a revolutionaryleft.com thread where he writes:
"I'm somewhat less optimistic...Based on the projected decline of superstition in the U.S., my estimate is 2090-2110."
Yes, that seems to me like a reasonable guess at this time. There are lots of factors at work or potentially at work in the long build-up towards a revolution...some of them probably completely unknown to us at this point.
I see the American working class as deeply demoralized and fearful in the present era...and consequently hag-ridden with superstition (including the superstition of patriotism). The only apparent "up-side" is the steady decline of racism and sexism...those ideologies do appear to be slowly "withering away" among working people.
At this time, this class is incapable of revolution...and that's a good thing. Because if they were capable, what would come out of it would be something a lot closer to clerical fascism than to anything we would want.
I expect the next and future generations of workers to be a lot "better"...with a much clearer grasp of social reality.
Periods of reaction, fortunately, are not "eternal".
quote:
In other words, [redstar2000] thinks revolution isn't possible until religion has been vanquished (and until, basically the masses have overwhelming communist consciousness.)
Well, to be precise, successful revolution isn't possible until, etc.
I suspect that revolutions that might take place in advanced capitalist countries before communist consciousness is wide-spread among the masses will deteriorate fairly quickly back to capitalism.
If the masses are not confident of their "fitness to rule"...then they won't do it. They'll pick somebody to rule "in their interests"...and get screwed.
That's what happened many times in the course of the rise of the capitalist class to power...they'd pick some "pro-business" aristocrat or despot to rule "in their interests" -- and end up getting screwed. It took a couple of centuries for them to realize that if they wanted the job done right, they had to do it themselves.
I see no reason why this is not true of the working class as well.
quote:
This is a linear and mechanical view that denies the possibility of leaps, or the fact that huge transformation of human consciousness happen after the seizure of power and beginning of the socialist transition period.
No, I don't deny that either or both of those things may take place. I just don't want to rely on them. If you "bet" on those possibilities and "lose", you're in serious trouble!
On the other hand, if the masses are mostly communist or pro-communist, and you then get some "leaps"...that's a bonus. You can move forward without them if necessary but you'll move forward even faster if they materialize.
quote:
It is not "left" to take this one-sided stand toward the revolutionary potential of the religious sections of the masses, it is pessimism and idealism.
One guy's pessimism is another guy's realism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on March 27, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, it's a nice warm fuzzy picture of rural American Christians...they're not really "bad people".
Neither were most Germans in the Third Reich.
But they followed some very bad people!
And so does "little brother preacher" and all his counterparts.
And there's nothing "nice" or "warm" or "fuzzy" about that at all!
I cannot but be continually astonished at the contemporary left's abysmal failure to recognize that Christianity (like all religions) is your enemy.
They're not just "good people" who "disagree with you" about imperialist war or women's reproductive freedom or the feeding of brain-dead hospital patients.
They want a new Dark Age! And they want it passionately.
And they'll achieve it unless the left quits wallowing in sentimental "tolerance" and starts confronting these bastards for the barbarians they are!
Or would you rather wait until they burn a witch in Union Square?
(Oh, and while I'm at it, wouldn't it be a great step forward if people would quit all the a-historical crapola about the Palestinian tub-thumper? He was not a communist or a socialist or even a bourgeois liberal -- those things didn't exist 2,000 years ago. He was a Jewish revivalist, a country preacher who didn't like big-city Judaism. That's all!)
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at SF IndyMedia on March 27, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------
I am very favorably impressed with Sunsara Taylor & Debra Sweet for their bold and imaginative confrontation with Christian fascist thugs like Randall Terry.
It may well be the first occasion when this phrase -- "Christian fascism" -- has appeared in the mainstream media.
These two young women may even have obtained for themselves a footnote in the history books.
Cheers for them!
It's interesting (to me) to speculate about some of the details.
I wonder, for example, if the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade or the RCP even knew in advance that these two women were going to do this. I have this "gut feeling" that they spontaneously took it upon themselves to act without bothering to ask for permission.
One indication: Ms. Taylor got the name of Bob Avakian's site wrong on her sign...not something you'd expect from someone who was really "down with the Chairman".
Another oddity: Ms. Taylor made a distinctly peculiar sign for herself -- "We need morality but not traditional morality". That really doesn't sound like something the RCP would have approved in advance (though I could be wrong about that, of course).
Meanwhile, I hope a lot of other lefties will learn from the actions of these two women. In America, Christian fascists are just as bad as Nazis or Klansmen...and there are a lot more of them!
It is long overdue for us to confront those bastards as vigorously as possible.
--------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on March 29, 2005
--------------------------------------------------
quote:
The statement on her poster is (a) appropriate, and (b) a title of a work by the main man. Why you think that would not be something the RCP would write on a poster is odd to me.
Here is what I posted at Sunsara Taylor's blog...
quote (redstar2000):
I salute you and your friend for your bold and imaginative confrontation with the Christian fascist thugs in Florida.
But I'm very puzzled by the wording of the sign that you made -- "We need morality but not traditional morality."
I think people will find that very confusing...I know I did.
To me, it suggests that "morality" -- an arbitrary fixed code of behavior sanctioned by one or more mythological deities -- is something we "need"...just not the one we have now.
In confronting our enemies, I think we need to be careful not to grant their outlook any kind of "implied legitimacy".
Reactionaries have always flown the flag of "morality"...I think we need a very different word on our flags.
best wishes,
redstar2000
http://sunsara.blogspot.com/2005/03/cnn-sh...s.html#comments
So ok, why don't you explain why you think it's "appropriate".
Clarity matters.
--------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on March 29, 2005
--------------------------------------------------
quote (Bob Avakian):
From whatever vantage point one looks, it is unmistakable that there is what could be called "a moral crisis in America." There has been, to a significant degree, "a breakdown of traditional morality."
Yes, it "could" be called that...or a whole lot of other things, I would imagine.
The Christian paradigm is taking a daily pounding...more as a by-product of scientific advances than because of any serious ideological struggle on our part.
I think that the "moral crisis" is a very good thing.
quote (Avakian):
But the answer to this--at least the answer that is in the interests of the majority of people in the U.S. and the overwhelming majority of humanity--is not a more aggressive assertion of that "traditional morality" but winning people to a radically different morality...
Curiouser and curiouser. The "common sense" definition of the word morality is a standard of "right conduct" commanded by a supernatural entity and imposed at gunpoint by its earthly representatives.
What is the origin of "the main man's" radically different morality? On what "holy book" is it based? And what are we now commanded to do or refrain from doing according to this "new revelation"?
You may find the use of this quasi-religious vocabulary objectionable...but these are the common words used to talk about this stuff.
quote:
We can't defeat [the Christian fascists] if the terms are "traditional morality vs. immorality"
or if it is "traditional morality vs amorality"
or if it is "traditional morality vs moral relativism".
No, those words would not be the best choices. They would be equivalent to the people fighting for women's reproductive freedom accepting the framework of the Christian fascists and calling themselves "pro-death".
Instead, they call themselves pro-choice -- rejecting the Christian fascist framework altogether.
If Ms. Taylor had put on her sign: "We need civilized ethics...not traditional morality"...that would have removed the struggle from the Christian fascist framework very effectively.
Trying to make yourself appear "more moral" than the Christian fascists is, as I noted, just going to confuse people.
It's like trying to struggle against Nazism by proposing a radically different anti-semitism.
--------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on March 30, 2005
--------------------------------------------------
A most interesting post. I wasn't aware that I was "part of a trend" -- that's a very unusual position for me to find myself in. But I'm delighted to see that others are also saying these things.
quote:
The fact remains that there is an ongoing debate about morality throughout human history and the current American debate is essentially controlled by the Right.
I don't think "debate" is quite the right word here. What's been going on "throughout human history" is the efforts of ruling classes and their clerical allies to impose (by violence or the threat of violence) some version of morality that reinforces class society and the interests of its rulers. The "cosmic justification" of "things as they are" is a tool...not a hypothesis about objective reality.
I agree that, at this point, the Right does mostly "control the debate"...that is "where the money is", after all.
And they do have a long tradition supporting their ideological stance. Do you expect to effectively oppose "The Ten Commandments" with the "Ten Sayings of
the Chairman"?
quote:
It seems that the answer given for how to defeat the Right in this debate is to avoid the debate.
I don't see where you get that from; I (and others) argue that the "debate" should be framed in terms of objective reality...and not the terms of barbarous superstition.
quote:
A debate which is objective in terms of its connection to human history and society and the very condition of being human.
I'm sorry, but you lost me on this one. The "very condition of being human" is an idealist abstraction. Which real humans? In what class? In what form of class society? With what material and ideological resources? A product of what particular history?
quote:
Basically the answer given by Redstar and others is to change the subject.
Essentially, yes! To change it away from fantasy options to real options. That's what all forms of "morality" are really "about" -- "choices" between options that are fantasies.
Christian fascism, like all fascist ideologies, is based on mythology...not reality. The way to defeat it is to insist on calling it what it really is.
quote:
In fact by the end of her piece I am left with the impression that what Redstar sees as a proven and successful tactic in the abortion debate is actually its main failure; NOT taking the language of the Right on and being too scared to deal the aspects of abortion which are visually uncomfortable.
Failure? What do you mean? To be sure, reactionary legislatures have attempted to curtail the access to abortion with some limited success...it's what reactionaries do. Perhaps a Supreme Court packed with more Bush-appointed judges will even effectively overturn Roe vs. Wade.
Yet if that happens, I freely predict that the "culture wars" that have taken place up to now will be nothing compared to what will happen then.
Remember the Dred Scott decision?
Also, what do you mean about the "visually uncomfortable" aspects of abortion?
Surgery is not "pretty".
quote:
I think perhaps some of these debates are more than about terminology. They have to do with long lasting issues of human society. Issues that have well formed sides to them. To not get on one side or the other simply ignores the importance of the debate and ultimately with issues like morality and abortion it leaves the field of contest empty giving that side with the most momentum the run of the field.
Well, I obviously have picked a side. I'm for science and against superstition across the board.
And I'm trying to get you guys to "pick a side" as well! This is no time for being "mealy-mouthed" or "conciliatory" -- intransigent opposition to those superstitious bastards is what's called for.
quote:
On the other hand you don't want to be blindly oppositional and just take the opposite view of [the] Right wherever you find it, some obvious problems develop from this.
Maybe...I can't think of any off hand.
Smash the Christian fascist wherever you find him!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on March 31, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I suspected to some extent that this would come down to definitions or semantics.
Well, I think that words can either clarify or confuse...and it's important to understand the difference and pick the ones that clarify.
quote:
The RCP, I believe, argues that being for science is a moral position. This is what is meant when it is said that we need morality, but not traditional morality.
Perhaps it is...but I don't see the utility of framing it that way. A scientific outlook on the world, human existence, etc. is liberating. It asserts that we can both understand the world and change it.
It informs us of the real-world consequences of our choices...if we choose to do X, there is a high probability of consequence Y.
That is infinitely more useful than a list of arbitrary rules for conflict resolution among bedouins.
quote:
Unlike your definition of morality as a necessarily religiously motivated field, which shares all the bad aspects of religion through history, the meaning of morality that I'm putting forth is simply "motivation based on ideas of right and wrong".
When you suggest that the word ethics be used instead, you're really not changing the frame of debate, but the language. After all an ethic is "a theory or a system of moral values".
I think the word "morality" is inextricably linked with its religious origins.
But I think most people understand the word "ethics" to be secular...the use of human reason to decide what is "good" or "evil".
For example, I think keeping brain-dead people "alive" for decades or longer is a rotten idea. The resources used to do that could feed a lot of hungry kids! Or even fund stem-cell research with the ultimate goal of repairing severe trauma to the brain. In my opinion, if no activity can be detected in your cerebral cortex after a couple of months, the humane and ethical thing to do is to give you a lethal injection and use your functional organs for transplants.
On the other hand, the barbarians in Florida say "what about miracles?"
quote:
Having said all this how and why would you reframe the debate? What does it even mean? I don't have a problem with the concept necessarily, it just depends on the hows and whys of it. What's behind it? Does it really move the struggle forward?
If we agree that Christian fascism is a real threat, then I think we have to frame the debate in the same way people framed it when they were fighting the Third Reich. Fascism at its ideological core is not just a "variant" of bourgeois society or just an ideological "tool" of a threatened bourgeoisie...it's an entirely different way of looking at everything.
Joseph Goebbels understood the conflict: "The year 1789 is hereby repealed" and even more to the point, "Yes, we are barbarians!"
Contemporary Christian fascists are not so forthcoming...but that is nevertheless what's at stake.
So what would I call them? The Christian Al-Qaeda! The barbarians in our midst. The people "who want no king but Jesus". I'd look through their most fanatical websites and pull out the most brazen shit I could locate and tar them all with that brush. (For example, the Bible says that slavery is "ok"...so I'd accuse them of wanting to bring back slavery.)
We should not say anything that would suggest or imply any legitimacy to their concerns or priorities.
They are scum, period!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on March 31, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Doesn't "Christian Al-Qaeda" buy into the terms of debate set by neo-cons on terrorism?
Yes. In this case, I think the term is appropriate. It clarifies an accurate description of a social group.
Al-Qaeda is a reactionary organization seeking to impose a Muslim theocracy through the use of violence (both state and non-state).
This also describes the Christian fascists...who seek to impose a reactionary Christian theocracy through the use of violence (both state and non-state).
From the bombings of women's clinics to the recent threatened use of the Florida State Police to seize that brain-dead woman's body (nearly risking a shoot-out between the local and the state police -- Fort Sumter, anyone?), Christian fascism is violent and terroristic up to its eyebrows.
So I would seek to associate Al-Qaeda and Christian fascism in the public mind...they are "birds of a feather" if ever such existed.
------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on April 1, 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------
quote (Sunsara Taylor):
Morally - yes, humans need morality, but, NO, conservative fundamentalist Christians do NOT have a monopoly on morality. People are deeply alienated by this atomized, impersonal society, and every day we witness or hear about things which wrench our hearts and we ask ourselves how it is that people live this way, treat each other the way they do, and whether it could ever be any different. We NEED morality - but we DO NOT NEED traditional morality which is based on the oppression of women, relations of master and slave (or wage-slave), racism, and deep oppression and inequalities. We need a morality which flows from, and helps guide us to, a world that liberates humanity from traditions chains - where mutual respect flourishes. Where there are no more men oppressing women, no more white people lording over non-whites, no more class of capitalists forcing everyone else to toil for them and no more one country trying to run the globe.
http://www.sunsara.blogspot.com/
It's obvious that she's using the phrase "new morality" as a kind of crude verbal club to pound on the characteristics of capitalism.
But we already have words to do that with...communist words.
Is she enamored of the phrase "new morality" because she thinks it "sounds better"? That Americans will "like it" better?
Does she think that communism is "a moral choice"? (As opposed to a rational choice that one makes in one's own class interests.)
In addition, of course, we know that "traditional morality" is "commanded by God". That's its intellectual foundation; it's "part" of the "theocratic cosmological fabric".
What does "new morality" rest on? It's not "commanded" by anything.
Thou "shalt not" oppress and exploit. Why not?
In secular terms, there's a rational explanation. In any social order that permits oppression/exploitation, the odds are that you will be one of the oppressed/exploited. There's very little room at the top of a social pyramid and your chances of reaching it are nil...especially when the bastards already at the top rig things in such a way as to preserve their dominance and keep people like you from upsetting their position.
Your best chance of long-term freedom from being oppressed/exploited is to support a social order in which oppression/exploitation is not permitted.
Q.E.D.
I can't understand the utility of "new morality" as a kind of "patch" on Marxism...what is it "for"?
------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on April 1, 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------
===================================== |
|
| |
|
|
Navigation |
·
Welcome
·
Theory
·
Guest Book
·
Hype
·
Additional Reading
·
Links
·
Contact
|
|
Latest Theory
Collections |
· Communists Against Religion -- Part 19 June 6, 2006
· Conversations with Capitalists May 21, 2006
· Vegetable Morality April 17, 2006
· Parents and Children April 11, 2006
· The Curse of Lenin's Mummy April 3, 2006
|
|
Defining Theory
Collections |
·
What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? September 13, 2004
·
Class in Post-Revolutionary Society - Part 1 July 9, 2004
·
Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement November 13, 2003
·
A New Type of Communist Organization October 5, 2003
·
The "Tools" of Marxism July 19, 2003
·
Marxism Without the Crap July 3, 2003
·
What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
A New Communist Paradigm for the 21st Century May 8, 2003
·
On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts May 8, 2003
|
|
Random Quote |
| To speak of workers' power at all necessarily requires the absence of a professional military or police force.
|
|
Search |
| |
Statistics |
|
·
Duplicate entry '1152057841' for key 1 | |
