Hence the weird attempt to try to make Sophia Lamb a Collectivist Christian to contrast against Andrew Ryan's atheist capitalist philosophy in bioshock 2. Not that christian socialists are unheard of in real-life.
edited 6th Dec '13 4:35:37 PM by joeyjojo
hashtagsarestupidLiberation Theology
. Very interesting. Christopher Hitchens dismissively refers to them as "seeing Jesus as a dues-paying Marxist" or something like that. Christopher Hitchens, while often making valid points, is kind of an insulting, sneering jerk when Preaching to the Choir; given how often he gets religious folks talking to him and befriending him, one can only assume he knows not to be so rude all the time. Also, his understanding of Islam, in contrast with the depth of his Christian lore, leaves something to be desired.
</rant>
edited 6th Dec '13 4:42:15 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
It also had a much harsher version of Confession. For one thing, it was public, and a once-in-a-lifetime deal. And the entire commuity got to give you crap for your confessed sins. Early Christianity was kind of an impractical, scary cult. Well, it still is an impractical, scary cult, but it used to be a fair bit more so.
edited 6th Dec '13 5:06:36 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
You just said this:
followed by this:
Don't you think there's a chance that both you and Hitchens were being so brief and to-the-point about your descriptions of a religious position for much the same effect? I don't think Hitchens' comment was in any way more rude than yours, anyway.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.Why is it unlikely? Liberation Theology was established well after Marx's ideas became widely known.
Or do you mean the thing about seeing Jesus as a Marxist? I think what's meant by that is that according to that movement, the ideas of Jesus were similar to those of Marx, making Jesus something of a Marxist. It's anachronistic, but that sort of thing gets said all the time. Is it really offensive to use a modern term to refer to a facet of an ideology or movement from the past?
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.![]()
I don't know what he meant for sure, but I do know what he said. And it wasn't the first time he sacrificed accuracy for wit/snark.
Jesus also promised that the poor (or was it the meek?) would inherit the earth, that the rich had an absurdly slim chance of being saved, that everyone should just give up their wealth and families and follow him, and he was a bit of an anti-commercialist revolutionary freedom fighter avant-la-lettre.
However, saying "the LT folk viewed him as a humble follower of Marx" is rather absurd. The inverse position, expressed by Nietzsche, that Marxism, especially in Escathology, was largely revamped Christianity and drew its mass appeal from addressing similar issues and making similar false promises, make a lot more sense. Sugarcandy Mountain, or Old Major's vision?
edited 6th Dec '13 6:06:36 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Karl Marx on religion, most (in)famously, from his introduction to a planned Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, page 1 (he never got round to writing the rest).
In essence, Marx viewed religion as a tool of the ruling classes that was used to oppress the proletariat by giving them false hope of eternal glory in the next life and encouraging them to accept earthly suffering in expectation of a divine payout that would never come. To Marx, the meek don't inherit the earth - they inherit fuck all, after lives of breaking their backs down mines or in factories and mills producing for the bourgeoise. At the same time, he also saw religion as a protest against suffering: the human spirit demands happiness and reward, so the construction by the proletariat of a false context (ie, religion) in which suffering was rewarded, their hard work meant something to them, and in which they could become masters of their own fate was the only option in a world strangled by the parasitic capitalist class.
Marx ultimately concludes that the illusory happiness of faith must be replaced by the real happiness of equality:
His theory wasn't without foundation: in the historical context in which Contribution was written, religion was often very closely aligned with the status quo, and the status quo was of vast injustice, and, as the Industrial Revolution began, the dismantling of the old ways of life and the ancient rights of the rural proletariat (such as the Acts of Enclosure
and the Highland Clearances
). The Tsar, for instance, practically controlled the Russian Orthodox Church (so called caesaropapism). The French Catholic Church was closely wedded to the ancien regime and monarchism (and elements of it remained so until Vatican II). Much of the charitable work undertaken by religion served only to entrench dependency or poverty. In 1864, the Catholic church issued the reactionary Syllabus Errorum
, condemning rationalism, liberalism, and socialism. The justification for the feudal system, which was still present in parts of Marx's native Germany, is explicitly religious: the King derives his right to rule from God, and everyone else derives their property from the king.
Of course, Marx also got a lot wrong about religion too: he failed to properly appreciate its role in bringing about change (a lot of abolitonism was religiously-inspired, for instance), its genuine charity, and the religious foundations of many early revolutionaries, such as those who argued during the English Civil War that they had natural, God-given rights to land etc.
Then, along came Lenin, who thought religion was entirely and completely shit, who viewed it as a malevolent influence on the proletariat, and declared that:
And hence came the state-enforced atheism of most Soviet (and thus Marxist-Leninist) states. Albania, North Korea, Laos, Cambodia, and China outright dismantled religion and tried to completely destroy it. Stalin tried, but brought the Russian Orthodox Church back into the fold to stir up the people to resist Operation Barbarossa, and most of the other Soviet states tried to make life difficult for believers in various other ways, violent or otherwise. Of course, suppression of alternative loyalties and belief systems is an important ingredient of totalitarianism, from the Roman deification of their Emperors to Hitler's "Positive Christianity".
That isn't to say that socialist anti-theism must take a violent or coercive character. Bukharin urged secularism and freedom of belief, arguing that Communism would destroy religion peacefully by out-maneuvering it in the war of ideas:
Some strands of socialism accept Marx's critique of capitalism, but not his critique of religion. You can read more about them under the "religious socialism" section of the Socialism page.
edited 7th Dec '13 6:04:55 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der ParteiLook at this arrogance. He anthropomorphizes an international political movement, and then puts words in its mouth, with a perfectly confident, final tone.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Well, that's Lenin. He was one of the worst people to emerge from Socialist movements anywhere.
When Hitchens talks about Marx the point (usually) has something to do with the Marxist analysis of history, which he often said he couldn't abandon even though he had otherwise moved to the Right in politics. Ideas of class conflict, and of opposing ideologies clashing in a way that creates the centre of the next system (which again will change when it develops two clashing movements,) are at the centre of Marxist analysis of history.
So if Hitchens calls someone a Marxist it probably means that he thinks that person views society in terms of class; believes that society changes through the conflicts of classes; puts the emphasis on large groups of people, rather than individuals; and is in favour of taking down the upper classes and raising the standards of living for the lower classes.
That's generally what Marxism means, anyway.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.Clearly no. He puts individuals above classes. Although he recognized different classes, he clearly didn't use class as his primary filter. One's relationship to God and his kingdom were his primary filter. He did not call for the overthrow of the upper classes (he thought the eschaton would take care of that). His primary message in regards to the means of production was "give up worldly desires and live a spiritual life." He seems to have derived most of his philosophical outlook from what was at that time a well established tradition of Greek and Hebrew asceticism.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.You could give Jesus some Marxist points for focusing on the lower classes, and dreaming about a new system where people wouldn't be slaves to the circumstances of their birth. Personally I wouldn't call him a Marxist because he didn't advocate for an active effort to abolish the class system in this life (believing in a next life and placing one's hopes in that is in itself a departure from Marxism) but there are some connections between the ideology attributed to Jesus and that established by Marx and Engels.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.Do we have any actual "Marxists" avant-la-lettre that predate eighteenth-century Socialism and such. And would they count as Ur-Example or as Unbuilt Trope?
In Christopher Hitchens' book God Is Not Great, he talks a fair deal about Ancient Atheists (or, at the very least, Ancient Skeptics). While those tend to show up a lot in contemporary movies set in Antiquity, I used to think they were a case of the authors projecting themselves unto their characters and making them seem cool and world-weary, or something. Still, it's interesting that, since times immemorial, so much as openly questioning the established mythologies could get you Chalice'd at the very least
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

If you read up on the history of NATO activities to make sure their allies (and perceived neutrals) don't join ranks with the USSR you'll find that it makes for some pretty sobre reading. They carried out bombings in train stations and kidnapped prominent activists (and possibly the former Prime minister of Italy, Aldo Moro, though it has not been established that NATO was necessarily involved in that one.)
Anyway, you're right that the lumping of all Left-wing politicians with Communists and/or the USSR was never justified. That doesn't change the fact that that's how millions of people saw the world back then (and of course millions still see it so today.)
...I just realised how thoroughly off-topic this all is. Damn...
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.