Liberation Theology and an Apology
In a discussion, I can’t locate right now, I accused Dan Trabue of equating Jesus message with class warfare. Now we have some disagreements, but that accusation was and is unfair and wrong … and I apologize.
Mr Trabue is far more comfortable with Marxist Liberation theology than is healthy for anyone, err, than I. Particularly seeing as how I think, and I think I can support, the idea that Marxism is inextricably linked with genocide. But that is no reason to connect Mr Trabue to a line of thinking that link Jesus teachings on charity to the poor, via Liberation theology to Marxism and thereby conclude that Mr Trabue thinks that Jesus commends class warfare. So, no I don’t believe that Mr Trabue thinks that the outworking of Jesus theology is Holodomor.
Mr Traube holds his beliefs out (see comment 10 in the above linked item) for us all to review so we might examine our differences. I’m going to list these items and remark on some of them in the hopes of exploring in a gracious way, our differences.
1. We are saved by God’s grace, through faith in Jesus. Not by works.
Now a lot of theological fire is held in abeyance in this statement. Catholics affirm it, yet they continue by noting that faith without works is dead … so by logical inference works are required as well, but the works don’t save us, Christ does. Works are the evidence of our faith. Paul also notes works without faith avail us not in Romans.
2. We are not saved merely by believing in Jesus (”yeah, he was a good guy, son of God, that’s all cool”) – even the demons believe, we’re told – but by believing in Jesus and his teachings, the Way he told us to live. By embracing that as the Right and Good Way, by asking for forgiveness when we get it wrong and trusting in God to help us follow in those steps.
Sacramental efficacy? Baptism into life, “all who are Baptized into Christ have put on Christ” is sung at times in Orthodox liturgy. Fasting, prayer, confession, repentance, charity, and the liturgy are the ways in which we follow that way. We don’t ask forgiveness “when we get it wrong” because we always get it wrong. We must pray continually, ask forgiveness continually, etc.
4. Because we’re flawed humans, we don’t always get it right. Sometimes we misunderstand the Bible. Sometimes, our reasoning is off. Thankfully, we are saved by God’s Grace.
What has been accepted by Ecumenical council and received by the Church catholic are how we judge the correctness of our interpretation. See also St. John Cassian on discernment transmitting the wisdom of the Desert.
5. The Bible has clear teachings – consistently throughout the whole of the Bible – about wealth and poverty. To ignore them is foolishness
I agree. I just think the teachings on our attitude toward God, our repentance are more important. That is the crux of our argument.
6. One of the consistent gists of biblical teachings on wealth and poverty is that God is especially concerned for the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized. God clearly loves us all, but consistently throughout the Bible, God says, “woe to those who’d mistreat the poor.” God never in all of the Bible says such about the rich, the powerful and the mainstream. There are lessons to be learned there.
“woe to those who’d mistreat the poor”? Where? Just curious. On the “never says that about the rich” I don’t know what is meant by that. St. John Chrysostom taught that the rich should help the poor as part of charity and the poor for their part in charity should pray for the rich. I think that is right.
7. The lesson, though, isn’t that God is a class warrior or a mere marxist – playing the rich against the poor. Again, God loves us all. Rich and poor. God wants what’s best for us all.
“God wants what’s best for us all.” Which is that we are holy, priestly, God-fearing people.
8. This world is a world of abundance and plenty, with plenty for all – providing that some don’t overconsume resources and especially that they don’t do so by “false scales,” “buying land upon land,” etc. i.e., providing that people don’t oppress others by systems or methods that are designed to take advantage of people to one’s own benefit.
?! See my prior post.
9. Both Marxism and capitalism are flawed human constructs – ways of dealing with matters of economy. Neither is perfect and, in fact, both have quite potentially large flaws. My personal inclination is towards a regulated capitalism. I think Marxism is difficult to pull off well on the large scale.
Marxism is evil incarnate. Slavoj Zizek writes that Lenin is to Marx and Marxism and Paul is to Christ and Christianity. You cannot have one without the other. Marxism implies genocide. Marxism was “pulled off” just fine by Mao and Lenin. The result speaks for itself.
10. Because I recognize the reality of the large number of verses dealing with wealth and poverty, because I point out that James said, “Is it not the rich who are exploiting you?” or that Jesus said, “it is difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom,” doesn’t mean much beyond that I’m pointing them out and that I believe that what Jesus and James and the prophets and all the other writers of the Bible had to say is important.
I’m not disputing that. I’m disputing your comfort level with Marxism and your theological elevation of poverty/charity in the Gospel.
Filed under: Christianity • Mark O. • Orthodox • Protestantism • Religion
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Thanks for the attempt to deal with this in a more meaningful way and without misrepresenting my position. There’s a lot to discuss there, but let me begin by focusing on one.
You state unequivocally:
Marxism is evil incarnate
Which makes me wonder: What do you think Marxism is?
I tried to find a nice summary of Marxist tenets, but didn’t find much that was briefly written. Here’s a few highlights from one source:
The basic tenets of Marxism include
· The abolition of private property
· ownership of the means of production by the community, rather than by one individual
· Work would be divided according to ability and benefits shared according to need
· Marxism, by equalizing the distribution of wealth, attempts to get rid of this idea of class
Which deals with some of the highlights, but is not a full description. Still, starting from there: I’m wondering what in the world do you find EVIL in these thoughts?
I can certainly see disagreeing with some tenets of Marxism, but I’m not sure that I see anything EVIL in its tenets. Indeed, that description above would be an apt description of heaven or the early church: A place without class, without poverty, shared resources, where the needy would have their needs met and no one would have too much.
I’m thinking also of the description of Manna in the desert. Those who collected much did not have too much and those who collected a little did not have too little.
But, as I noted, that’s not a complete description of marxism. So, perhaps we could begin by saying why you react so strongly to this economic system? You don’t merely disagree with it (like I do) but find it better to call it “evil incarnate”?? Seems a bit strong.
It looks like to me that at least one difference between us that explains some of our disagreements is the way we approach church and theology. You say you’re part of a tradition that relies upon decisions from on high – a Council – that makes pronouncements about what’s orthodox and not. It’s a top-down, hierarchichal, probably patriarchal, way of deciphering God’s Word.
I come from the baptist/anabaptist/quaker/free church tradition that has a heavy emphasis upon the priesthood of the believer, the beloved community, bottom-up, egalitarian approach to reading and interpreting God’s Word. The emphasis is on individual (moreso in baptist circles) and local decision-making/theology-forming. It is a bit anti-authoritarian and we tend to reject decisions/pronouncements handed down from “on high” in favor of the local community’s decisions/opinions.
With those differences, it is not surprising that we might have some disagreements.
A few quickies…
Mark said:
the idea that Marxism is inextricably linked with genocide.
I wonder how you would do that?
Mark said:
We don’t ask forgiveness “when we get it wrong” because we always get it wrong. We must pray continually, ask forgiveness continually, etc.
This would be an area where we just disagree. Asking for forgiveness “for whatever I did” strikes me as a bit meaningless. It’s like a child who has been caught stealing and when a parent insists they apologize, the child goes over to the victim of the crime and says, “sorry for whatever.” and the person says, “do you know what you did that was wrong?” and the child says, “no, but sorry anyway, or whatever…”
If you don’t know what you’ve done wrong, you can’t really repent. Repentance involves turning around from the wrong direction you were going and moving in the right direction. If the child doesn’t realize stealing was wrong, they can’t repent.
But, at this level, I bet you agree with me. So, perhaps you mean something different here.
I just think the teachings on our attitude toward God, our repentance are more important. That is the crux of our argument.
Well, not really, as I believe strongly in repentance, as well. But we must also have a good understanding of what we ought to repent of. If we reject clear biblical teaching, then we don’t understand/won’t know of what we ought to repent. So, no, this is not the crux of our disagreement, seeing as how we agree.
“woe to those who’d mistreat the poor”? Where? Just curious. On the “never says that about the rich” I don’t know what is meant by that.
When I said, “woe to those who mistreat the poor,” it was a summary of the many passages that say words to that effect. Do you want me to provide a list?
And the Bible, while it frequently warns against maltreatment of the poor, the marginalized, the foreigner, the widowed, the orphaned, the oppressed, there are never any warnings against mistreating the wealthy, the powerful, the oppressor. There are those – especially in Liberation Theology – who find that significant; who think it speaks to “God’s preferential potion for the poor” and they make a good case.
As long as one doesn’t go so far as to suggest that God doesn’t love the rich – and I know of no one who does – it’s a hard case to dismiss, biblically.
St. John Chrysostom taught that the rich should help the poor as part of charity and the poor for their part in charity should pray for the rich.
This is part of that top-down, patriarchal approach to “helping the poor poor folk” that many in my tradition reject. It leads to a vertical “Savior-needy” relationship between brothers and sisters versus the more healthy and biblically appealing horizontal “brother to brother/sister to sister” approach.
Solidarity, not charity.
Charity tends to be crippling. Solidarity tends to be empowering. Charity tends to be off-putting and denigrating. Solidarity tends towards building relationships on equal footing.
It also lends itself to the powerful not needing to repent of their part in the problems. It allows them to salve their conscience by giving to those who they’ve helped cripple, rather than change systems so that they’re not crippling in the first place.
It tends away from necessary repentance, which we both agree to be vital to our Christian faith.
Dan,
Marxism is not a pretty heavenly system of sharing. The gospel is not just “do unto others”
Lenin critiqued the French revolution, admiring the Terror and remarking that the problem was they didn’t go far enough.
Evil.
You miss a crucial part of “top down hierarchical.” It is only that which is accepted by the Church (the ordained laity) that is normative. Describing it as “top down” is a crucial mistake.
Dan,
On Marxism and genocide? Because I fail to find a country that instituted Marxism and didn’t kill thousands or millions.
You put quotes around a phrase I didn’t say, which is misleading. As the Psalmist writes (51): For I know my transgression and my sin is ever before me. My sin, I can’t speak for yours, is pretty constant and ever present.
There is an important difference here I think that the analogy to the Catholic/Protestant smoke/fire works/grace thing is relevant. In the analogy you are concentrating on “works”, i.e., charity and “solidarity” with the poor. My claim is the reverse, I think the priority is getting a right attitude toward God, getting your relationship with Him “right”. Furthermore, if you do that you will not fail to do the right thing regarding your fellow man. It seems to me you are claiming the reverse, that doing the right thing toward my fellow man will somehow create a right relationship with God. As St. Paul points out, works without faith is dead … and so is a right civil relationship with my brother.
On St. John Chrysostom idea, strike two. I think this is the second time I’ve mentioned this … and still you don’t get it.
Dr Cone does (suggest that God doesn’t “love the rich” … or in his case, “the White”).
Evil, how? What in those tenets I offered earlier is evil?
The abolition of private property, you think that’s an evil?
Ownership of the means of production by the community, rather than by one individual, evil?
Work would be divided according to ability and benefits shared according to need, is this evil?
WHAT exactly is “evil” in Marxist thought?
I see you write that “marxism implies genocide,” but you do so without the least support for that comment. Genocide is not part of marxist teaching.
Stalinist Russia certainly engaged in genocide, but the problem there was that it was a totalitarian (top-down, patriarchal) gov’t, which is not at all implied or demanded by Marxism.
And, since this is a new series of post, let me offer the standard ridiculous disclaimer:
I am not a communist, nor a marxist. I don’t think they work in the real world as its proponents would like for it to work. I prefer a regulated capitalism, as the least awful way of dealing with economic systems, although they all have their failings. My purpose here is not to praise marxism, but rather to try to avoid any demonization or strawman caricaturing of this failed approach to economics.
On Marxism and genocide? Because I fail to find a country that instituted Marxism and didn’t kill thousands or millions.
Governments such as Venezuela, Nicaragua, Chile, Moldova and parts of India have been democratic in nature and maintained regular multiparty elections and haven’t/didn’t institute mass slaughter (or at least in Venezuela and Nicaragua – I’m not as familiar with the others. Chile, for instance, I know has had HORRIBLE human rights abuses, but if I’m not mistaken, that was under US-backed Pinochet, who I don’t believe was a Marxist).
Socialist countries have tended towards human rights abuses and this is one of the reasons I don’t embrace communism. But that is in practice. Marxism in theory does not require such abuses, and there are examples in history of nations identifying as Marxist that have not engaged in totalitarianism.
And so I return to my question: Why do you go so far as to call Marxism itself “evil”? I mean, I could point to human rights abuses in capitalist countries, but that wouldn’t make Capitalism, the theory, evil.
I suspect your problem is with the many Socialist nations that have had totalitarian leaders with horrifying human rights records. I, too, am disgusted with those abuses. But we weren’t talking totalitarianism, but marxism.
I suspect you probably don’t find any of the tenets of Marxism truly evil, although you may disagree with them. But you tell me.
On St. John Chrysostom idea, strike two. I think this is the second time I’ve mentioned this … and still you don’t get it…
Dr Cone does (suggest that God doesn’t “love the rich” … or in his case, “the White”).
Let’s assume you are correct about Cone (and I doubt that you are, but let’s assume). Okay, that’s one LT-person who says that God doesn’t love the rich. I don’t think you can offer anything to show that this is the norm or that it is normative to LT.
Regardless, this does not count as a “strike” about my St John disagreement. My disagreement with St John, as you have presented him, is that it is a top-down, patriarchal, patronizing approach to charity that is lacking in Christian community and harmful to the church and her real desire to reach out to the poor (when the church gets around to having that real desire, which is not often enough) and to do so in a spirit of repentance, reconciliation and community.
Dan,
How is the abolition of private property not evil? Do you own any land? Or your own house? Do you own a car? Have any possessions? I’d assume you’d answer yes to most, if not all, of these. How is taking that way not evil?
I also never really understood what constitutes “means of production.” Usually it’s just another way of saying “private business” and the Marxists in power usually end up screwing over the small family businesses. Again, how is that not evil?
There is more I could say, but that’s enough for now.
In heaven, there is no private property. In the Christian community, we recognize that the Bible tells us that ALL the earth belongs to God, that we are merely stewards of a portion of it.
In traditional peoples thinking, the notion that “We do not own the earth, it belongs to our children,” is a common theme.
I find nothing innately evil in any of this.
The notion of the State taking away land is where the wrong-doing might come in, in people being not given the choice. Which is where my problems with marxism come in and which is why I’m not a marxist.
But the tenet itself is not evil. By my way of thinking.
Dan,
Socialism is not Marxism. Marxism doesn’t exist without Leninism … just as Christianity doesn’t exist with Jesus and without Paul. The problem with Marxism is that to implement it requires totalitarianism.
The points on Dr Cone and St. John Chrysostom were not linked. Dr Cone is not “just one person” who writes about BL Theology, he’s the founding thinker.
I didn’t say that and neither did he. I said, for the rich/powerful charity means assistance and for the poor it means prayer.
“In heaven there is no private property”? How many Angels dance on the head of a pin? How about after the Resurrection? How do you know this?
Dan,
Do you know nothing about the life and personality of St. John Chrysostom?
Nothing.
Wikipedia’d him. Sounds like my kind of guy, in many ways.
“It is not possible for one to be wealthy and just at the same time.”
“Do you pay such honor to your excrements as to receive them into a silver chamber-pot when another man made in the image of God is perishing in the cold?”
Sounds like he may have been accused of class warfare and of being anti-capitalism, too.
Socialism is not Marxism.
so, tell me, what specifically in the tenets of Marxism do you find evil? Either the ones I’ve offered or other components of Marxism?
Again, I suspect you’re not arguing against “Marxism” the theory so much as against totalitarianist nations. But words have meanings, what are you objecting to specifically in Marxism?
Dan,
Lenin.
Look at it this way: Someone could suggest that all religions are “pure evil.” It was, after all, religious folk who’ve been behind every purge, genocide and holocaust in history. Religion is therefore evil.
The problem with this thinking is that it is conflating the acts of its adherents with the tenets of faith systems. But, as we all know, these are not always (and sometimes, are rarely) one in the same. It’s unfair to blame Christianity the faith system based on the acts of some of its worst zealots. Especially, when they are acting contrary to the tenets of Christianity.
So, do you have problems with the actual tenets of Marxism that makes you call it evil, or is it more with its adherents who are not necessarily acting in line with its tenets?
Dan,
Lenin is to Marx and Marxism as Paul is to Jesus and Christianity. They are not separable like you think they are.
“In heaven there is no private property”? How many Angels dance on the head of a pin? How about after the Resurrection? How do you know this?
It’s my logical take on biblical teaching. Do you believe that everything belongs to God? I do (the Bible tells us this is the case). Therefore, what can we possibly own?
It’s a minor point, to me (do we own stuff in heaven) but that is my view, that it all belongs to God.
Dan,
We have a completely different view of eschatology. You think heaven is a place.
I think heaven is Theosis outside of time, “before” for Resurrection in this world.
Lenin is to Marx and Marxism as Paul is to Jesus and Christianity. They are not separable like you think they are.
Or, in other words, you have no – ZERO – specific reasons within the teachings of Marxism that make you think it evil, but rather you have a problem with its proponents? Fair enough. Me, too, with many of marxism’s proponents.
We have a completely different view of eschatology. You think heaven is a place.
Oh, I do? Thanks for letting me know that. I thought Heaven was being in the presence of God, which can be here and now, can be in the sweet by and by.
It’s a good thing you let me know what I actually think or I might have been confused.
Dan,
You misread me. Leninism is not separable. How many times do I have to repeat that.
Can you have Christianity without Paul? No. Paul is “not a proponent” of Christian faith and belief. He is more integral.
Dan,
If you don’t think heaven is a place, why are you talking at all about property?
You misread me. Leninism is not separable. How many times do I have to repeat that.
One time, with the citing of Marxist teaching that supports that position. Lacking that, you’re just passing gas.
Can you have Christianity without Paul? No. Paul is “not a proponent” of Christian faith and belief. He is more integral.
Wow. Do you actually believe this?? Is this some weird tenet of your Orthodox faith system? (and pardon the judgement upon your religion, but this is way beyond any small “o” orthodox Christian belief I’ve ever heard of).
I’ve never heard any Christian state such an outlandish position. we have Christianity because of Christ, because of God. Paul is NOT integral to the Christian faith. We are not saved by Paul or by Paul’s writings (which I am sure you don’t mean to indicate)…
What exactly do you mean by suggesting we couldn’t have Christianity without Paul? I must be misunderstanding you, but from where I’m sitting, that just sounds nutty.
If you don’t think heaven is a place, why are you talking at all about property?
Because I was asked by Donnie, “How is the abolition of private property not evil?” and I was pointing out that we WOULDN’T have private property in heaven. That, in a very real and orthodox Christian way, we don’t own property now.
Dan,
Your Biblical canon does not include Paul’s Epistles? (or the other apostolic letter)? Are they not an integral part of your understanding of theology and Christ. Can you drop them and still really understand what it means to be Christian? I say no.
On private property, how do you understand/exegete the 10th commandment?
Dan,
Oh, there’s also everything he did in Acts.
Don’t get me wrong, I love Paul and his writings. But “integral to Christianity” sounds like you’re suggesting one couldn’t have Christianity without him, and that’s just not the case.
We’d have Christianity without Paul’s writings, without Matthew or Luke’s writing – we’d have Christianity without the Bible (we certainly have had that in the past).
If, by integral, you merely mean that Paul played an important role in church history, well, I can agree with that with no problem. But I don’t think that equates to Paul being integral to Christianity.
On private property, how do you understand/exegete the 10th commandment?
I wouldn’t exegete it at all, if I could help it (seeing as how I can’t pronounce it, can’t spell it and what we need more’n anything else is a bit of interpretation). But…
The tenth commandment:
Neither shall you covet your neighbour’s wife. Neither shall you desire your neighbour’s house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.
In the time that this was written, a woman was chattel, property of the husband. Doesn’t mean she WAS his property. Such an idea is offensive in the extreme and obviously so, to today’s audience.
Similarly, we consider many things “ours” that are better understood to be God’s, for which we are caretaking.
Is that what you’re asking?
Dan,
Paul explicitly lays out a lot of theology specifically Christology, eschatology, parish development and other ecclessial matters. Can you discard all of that? Is that not integral to the Christian faith and cult?
It is that similar relationship between Marx and Lenin of which I speak. You can’t say I love Jesus and his teachings, but Paul destroyed it all. Just as you can’t say that, you can’t say, Marxism is fine, Lenin ruined it.
Heh. On Church without Bible, that Bible was established by those hierarchical Councils (Episcopal and conciliar) which you dismiss.
Dan,
Let me put it another way. A person says, I love everything Jesus says, but St. Paul. He’s horrible. I reject everything Paul ever wrote, taught, or did. He’s just an errant mistaken particular proponent of the Christian faith.
What can you say about that person’s beliefs/faith. Is that person Christian? Does he even make sense?
How could he affirm the Creed, because much of what is in the Creed, Paul taught.
Btw, do you (and does your church) affirm and confess the Nicene creed? Just curious.
I won’t go around any more with you on the Marxism question. You have no grounds for your statement that Marxism is evil. You are free to think so, but you’re doing so not based on anything but your hunch. You have not demonstrated that there is anything “evil” about the tenets of marxism. Believe as you wish, but don’t expect others to accept such audacious statements short of any logical support.
Paul explicitly lays out a lot of theology specifically Christology, eschatology, parish development and other ecclessial matters. Can you discard all of that? Is that not integral to the Christian faith and cult?
Paul’s writings help explain the Christian faith. That is different than saying Paul himself being integral to the Christian faith. I don’t know how else to say it: Paul himself – no matter how much we like him – is not integral to the Christian faith.
He is an important part of church history and we thank God for Paul’s writings, but neither Paul, nor his writings, nor the Bible itself! are integral parts Christianity, in that Christianity would collapse without them.
And, to be clear, that is what I’m talking about when I say “integral.” The rafters are an integral part of a building and it will collapse without them. The cables (I believe) are an integral part of the Golden Gate Bridge and it would collapse without them. Integral. Necessarily a part of.
Is this part of your faith tradition? I know very little about the Orthodox Church and I’ve never heard any such claim made.
I don’t know what you know about anabaptism/baptists, but as to your question about the Nicene Creed: Baptists have historically been anti-creedal. The bible is our creed, we like to say.
I don’t think most folk in my specific church – nor in the larger baptist/anabaptist community have any great problems with the tenets put forth in the Nicene Creed, but we in the Baptist world just don’t swing that way. It’s that whole Protestant thang.
After thinking about this conversation some and given some of what you’ve said, I’m wondering exactly what your idea is about Marxism. You balked when I mentioned some socialist countries (Nicaragua, Venezuela, etc) that have not embraced widespread human rights violations as a matter of course. You suggested (if I understood you correctly) that these aren’t/weren’t “marxist” countries, but socialist countries.
You understand that Marxism is an over-arching philosophy that includes socialism?
From Wikipedia (not always a reliable resource, but quite often a concise resource and they have their facts correct on this):
The Marxist theory of historical materialism understands society as fundamentally determined by the material conditions at any given time – this means the relationships which people enter into with one another in order to fulfill their basic needs, for instance to feed and clothe themselves and their families.
In general Marx and Engels identified five (and one transitional) successive stages of the development of these material conditions in Western Europe…
Primitive Communism: as seen in cooperative tribal societies.
Slave Society: which develops when the tribe becomes a city-state. Aristocracy is born.
Feudalism: aristocracy is the ruling class. Merchants develop into capitalists.
Capitalism: capitalists are the ruling class, who create and employ the true working class.
Socialism (“Dictatorship of the proletariat”): workers gain class consciousness, overthrow the capitalists and take control over the state.
Communism: a classless and stateless society.
There has never truly been a completely Marxist society in history, so far as I know. That is, no society has “evolved” through to the final “communism” stage of a stateless society.
So, strictly speaking, all Marxist leaning states (USSR, China, Nicaragua, Venezuela, etc, etc) have stopped at somewhere near the socialism stage and even then, few of those have represented socialism as defined in Marxism.
Regardless, Socialism IS considered a part of Marxist theory, so far as I understand it. You understand it differently?
Here’s a larger description of marxism. I’m wondering if our differences come down to different understanding of the term? What exactly is your understanding of the term? And please, some larger answer than “Lenin.”
Dan,
First, the discussions of Paul and Christ relating to Christianity are mine, not Orthodoxy. The division was on my part in attempting to understand, Zizek’s (an influential/interesting Marxist/Leninist/Lacanian philosopher) description of the relation between Marx, Marxism, and Lenin.
Yes. We agree. What I’m trying to get across is that it makes no sense to say, I accept Jesus but reject Paul.
Iceland is, I think if I have my Scandinavian economies and governments straight, is ranked as the freest market economy in the world, at the same time it one of the most socialist in its social policies. That makes your 4th stage in your list above very confusing (Socialism = overthrow the capitalists). Do you think Iceland is socialist or free market?
So is, by your statement are the rest. For all of those on the list from Slave society, Feudalism and Capitalism … are all “part of the theory”.
“Communism” as defined by Marx is a utopia in the truest sense. Utopia=”No Place” as coined by Thomas Moore. It is incomplete. Impossible. For Marx’s definition of communism neglected to supply many details of the process of getting from “here” to “there” and making the communist society a reality. That was left to Lenin.
I see Marxism/Communism as the government and the theory of government underpinning the Soviet, Chinese, and other such states as implemented mainly in the 20th century. That is evil.
I suggest you read some Zizek. He is undeniably brilliant, even if I disagree with just about everything he says. He will get you thinking. He has has a lot of very striking original things to say about the world and our society.
Much of those things your references describe as Marxism are unworkable, wrong, and are based on an incorrect understanding of man. Marxism in practice has been evil … because of
PaulLenin’s fondness for mass death.Lenin was a totalitarian. That could have been true if he had been a capitalist or a monkey wrench. The two are not of necessity interchangeable.
Pinochet was a capitalist and a totalitarian. Does that mean that capitalism = totalitarianism?
You are conflating terms with no reasonable explanation as to why.
I see Marxism/Communism as the government and the theory of government underpinning the Soviet, Chinese, and other such states as implemented mainly in the 20th century. That is evil.
You may “see” marxism as the gov’t in the USSR and China, but marxism is a way of explaining economic systems, it is not a governmental system.
Pinochet’s Chile was a capitalist dictatorship of the worst sort. The USSR was a communist dictatorship. Nicaragua was a Democratic Socialist state. The US is a capitalist republic. China was a communist totalitarianist state and is turning more and more into a capitalist totalitarianist state.
And so on. The “capitalist” and “communist/socialist” describes their economic system. The “totalitarianism/dictatorship,” “republic/democracy” describes their form of gov’t.
You and I both agree that for the most part, striving for a communist economic system has not proven itself to be very effective. But let’s not confuse marxism with totalitarianism. No matter how many times you might say it, they are not one in the same. As several communist democracies have shown.
Dan,
In order for socialism, communism, etc to work, you have to live in a totalitarian society. You don’t think people will give up their private property, family businesses, etc by asking nice, do you? No, you have to have mass death, etc to scare people into giving up their rights, freedoms and possessions. Communism, etc cannot work any other way.
sigh.
Says you.
The people of Nicaragua did it and were quite happy with it (I’ve been there. I have friends there.) until the “democracy-loving” US waged war using terrorism against the people to overthrow the gov’t.
The thing is, if The People agree – as the early church did – that this is a good thing and they are in unity on the point, if it is a free democracy where those who don’t agree can leave, then in theory it can work more or less.
Now, as I have said repeatedly, I don’t think it works very well and that is why I don’t endorse it. There has been a tendency for human rights violations in Marxist-leaning countries (of course, there has been a tendency for human rights violations in some capitalist countries as well). In all, I don’t think it works well and that is why I’m not a marxist.
But the point remains, there is nothing “evil” in marxist doctrine, just in how it has been carried out.
And once again, if you think there is something evil in the tenets, all you have to do is point out the tenet and then say, “see? that’s evil!”
And, once again, no one is doing that. You are pointing out the problems with implementation, which I have done as well. We all agree that communism has not worked well in practice, usually (although, it would have been interesting to see how Nicaragua would have fared without the interference from the US).
As an aside, did you know Nicaragua’s democratic socialist experiment was borne largely out of Liberation Theology? If you recall your history, for decades, Nicaragua was ruled by the US-supported Somoza regime. The Somoza family was capitalist-friendly and, therefore, received aid from the US (until they got too crazy even for the US to support, if I recall correctly) but was a brutal dictator.
The people hated the Somozas (and weren’t real thrilled with the US for propping them up all those years). And so, true to marxist doctrine, the people rose up against an oppressive system and overthrew the last Somoza. Sandinista was placed in power and then an election was held and he was elected president.
The revolution was fueled to a great degree by all the campesino farmers living their Christian faith out in base communities, per Lib Theology.
Sandinista’s cabinet had some LT priests in it. It was, by the accounts I read and from my contacts there, a real People’s Revolution and the poor folk that I’ve talked to there were quite happy with the progress being made up until the US started supporting the Contra terrorists. The literacy rate skyrocketed, healthcare and education improved.
Certainly, Sandinisto had some serious problems, as most humans do. And not all was peachy keen. But it was an interesting display of LT in action to oppose a brutal dictator and attempt to bring positive change.
Those were also some shameful, godawful black days in US history.
And the reason why I keep pushing on this – keep “defending” marxism when I don’t even believe in it – is because there is a world of difference between disagreeing with another philosophy and thinking that philosophy is “evil.”
If you merely disagree with Marxism, then if a Nicaragua decides to become a socialist democracy, then, eh, that’s their loss. Hopefully, they won’t be too damaged by the process.
BUT, if Marxism is “evil,” then it becomes necessary (at least for those who embrace the lesser of two evils” model) to do what is necessary to overthrow that gov’t. Even if it means embracing terrorism and war crimes (as we did in Nicaragua).
And there’s a world of difference between the two approaches.
The Reagan model (ie, all Marxism is evil) is anti-democratic, anti-Christian (at least from my point of view), unreasonable and unjust.
The other model (ie, Marxism is a flawed economic system) allows for freedom of the People to make their own decisions and reasonable.
Our words matter. What we say when we incorrectly identify something can mean the difference between life and death, between living reasonably and living in fear, between dealing with situations in truth and dealing with rumor-mongering, fear-mongering and outright lies.
And Nicaragua is a good model for why we ought not engage in demonization and demagoguery. Let us never forget.
Dan,
I am not “up to speed” on Nicaragua’s recent history … exactly how did they manage/plan to eliminate class in their socialist democracy?
Was there widespread seizure of property and corporate holdings? Was there collectivization of farms and the rest of industry?
Were those who had property, money, or opposed party in power suppressed, detained or stopped?
If not, why do you call it Marxist? Marxism requires revolution, right? Marxism requires the elimination of class, right?
You are exactly right our words matter. You just key on the wrong words. In a world where 100 million people died and billions suffered horribly in Marxist/Communist regimes. In a world where there is/was an ongoing struggle against that evil, it is dangerous to label yourself something you are not … for your label might be believed.
Socialism is not Communism. One is evil, the other is not.
Dan, have you ever read A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch or The Gulag Archipelago?
If not, why do you call it Marxist? Marxism requires revolution, right? Marxism requires the elimination of class, right?
Because THEY called it Marxist. They were Liberation Theologians and friends who overthrew a corrupt, oppressive administration and implemented marxism as they understood it.
You suspect they were wrong?
Socialism is a step in Marxist theory, as is communism. Just because you choose to decide who can and can’t call themselves Marxist doesn’t mean it’s so.
But maybe we are getting somewhere!
Are you saying that, within marxist theory, you are opposed to the communist stage of it? And, if so, then you’re not saying that Marxism is evil, but rather the communist stage of marxism is what you perceive to be evil? Is that what you’re saying and you’d like to revise your original point about Marxism?
And once again, those who died did so in Totalitarian regimes who happened to be socialist or otherwise marxist in their economic system.
And yet again: Because the despots Pinochet or Somoza were capitalists, does that mean that capitalism is evil? Does it go both ways?
Dan,
For crying out loud, Capitalism is a “step” in Marxist theory. That doesn’t make it Marxist.
No. Capitalism is not evil because its implementation does not require genocide, totalitarianism and worse.
sigh.
Whatever. Demonize away. Rumor-monger and twist reality. Don’t forget to pray for forgiveness as you do so – specifically for doing so, I’d suggest.
If you’re interested in more on the reality of Marxist Nicaragua (sometimes referred to as Socialist-Leninist, even!) that embraced Marxism with none of its “required” genocide or totalitarianism, you can read here. Here are some quotes:
The Sandinistas were influenced by three major groups of thought. First, and perhaps most heavily, they were influenced by the teachings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marx’s dialectical materialism, proletariat revolution, and rule by the workers seemed perfect and ingenious. The Sandinistas arrogantly viewed themselves as the catalyst of the proletariat revolution in Nicaragua. Second, they were influenced by Augusto Sandino, the aforementioned hero of the anti-US struggle. Sandino was a paternal character whose ideas were reflective of his pagan religion, his Marxist beliefs, and his close association with anarchism. Finally, they were influenced by the Christian Theology of Liberation. With this philosophy, the Sandinistas justified their revolution as freeing people from social, economic, and political oppression. The Sandinistas were a mixture of these influences, which made them a very unique cause, and very unique leaders…
The junta did, though, set out to educate their people in a way the Somoza regime had never attempted. The National Literacy Campaign of 1980 affected one in every two Nicaraguans . The literacy rate rose from 45% to 86% in one of the largest literacy campaigns ever, and the Sandinista government drew international acclaim. In September, 1980, the Minister of National Education, Carlos Tunnermann received the UNESCO Prize. Critics accused the Sandinistas of educating their people with propaganda and attempting to win over the rural proletariat in this way. This was undeniably true in part, but the outcome of this mass campaign was indeed positive.
The junta then quickly set to work on the equalization of wealth that had been promised in the Sandinista platform. Prior to 1979, about 4% of the landowners controlled about 52% of the arable land. The Sandinista junta set out to fix this, trying to make it an equal proportion. They directly started to confiscate Somoza family land, and other, similar land. The nationalization of Somoza’s property alone affected a total of 168 factories—25% of industrial plant in Nicaragua, valued at $200 million. This initial confiscation led directly to the Agrarian Reform Law of 1981, which targeted unused farms, property of absent landlords, and unproductive land for expropriation. From 1981-1985, thousands of acres of land were expropriated and turned into new, peasant collectives.
Peace.
Just know that, IF you start supporting the US begin efforts to overthrow Democratically-elected Ortega (he’s been elected again) and IF you advocate doing so by committing war crimes and embracing terrorism as Reagan did in the 80s, I shall strongly denounce that as the Evil that it is.
And in my case, that would be calling an ACTUAL evil an evil. And Lord have mercy on the souls of those Christians who advocate for evil.
Dan,
You might also note that Saddam’s literacy campaign was also marvelously effective. Authoritarian regimes are very very good at “getting things done.” They’re just not very humane about doing it.
Are you an apologist for him as well?
Do you defend Castro?
Ortega? Huh? That came from left field.
I would think Chavez, the Myanmar junta, and Mugabe the ones to condemn these days.
Ortega was the president during the Sandinista days in the 1980s – the one whose legitimate presidency Reagan sought to overthrow.
I’m not a defender of oppressive regimes (like Saddam, like Reagan, etc). I’m a defender of truth.
You are maligning Marxism and claiming that all marxist nations are totalitarian. Your problem is with totalitarianism – mine, too – not Marxism per se.
You can say, “yeah, but…” all you want, but you can’t point to a single line of marxist teachings that you can identify as evil, but instead, you are demonizing a people and a philosophy that you apparently don’t know much about. It appears you’ve been indoctrinated into the “Capitalism Is Great, Marxism Sucks” club and when anything that disagrees with that, you’re sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, “I can’t hear you because marxism sucks!!!”
Good luck with that.
Dan,
You’ll need to provide citations on the “Capitalism is great” part.
You were mighty silent on my questions of what sorts of communist policies Nicaragua implemented.
You can say, “yeah, but…” all you want, but you can’t point to a single instance of a Marxist/Communist regime that you can identify as not evil and totalitarian.