Jesus' General, Hugo Chavez.
While on the subjects of anti-semitism and Jesus, I thought I'd direct everyone's attention to an interesting debate going on here, and here about whether a recent speech by Hugo Chavez was anti-semitic or not. Chavez is a thug, and this photo of Big Hubo with Mr. Ahmacrazyman certainly does not support his cause amongst Jews. Still, in terms of the particular speech in dispute, my personal view is that it was and it wasn't anti-semitic: that (1) anytime you summon up the rhetoric of "Christ-killers" you are implicating Jews in some ways, but that (2) this particularly speech had nothing directly to do with the Jews, but rather imperialism and the rich. I bring this to your attention only because I can guarentee that in the next several months there will be articles in this, this, and this publication, at least, referencing this quote without its context as evidence of Chavez anti-semitism.
Also interesting to note about this speech and many others of Chavez -- in light of our debate on the wonderfully elastic Jesus -- is that he frequently uses Christ as a pillar of socialist ideology. What do our Marxist-leaning posters and commentators think of this (we'll call it chiefly rhetorical) move? The conflation of Christianity with socialism has been around for a half-century now since its inception by Gustavo Gutierrez as "Liberation Theology." Is it merely a practical matter ("praxis") that has the atheist/materialist Marxist say, "Socialism is impossible in this continent without the help of organized religion"? Can a modern-day Marxist champion such a strategy? True, if the Chavez regime can deliver basic services to the Venezuelan people as it promises (and some reports say it has) then whether it accomplishes it through religion is not really the issue. Still, my understanding of traditional Marxism (or Marx, at least) is that religious questions are not neatly separated from material needs and modes of production, but, as the Sheriff might say, are "real structural problems within our system" that prevent that utopian vision of heaven on earth whereby four moons will illuminate the earthyl night, the ice will recede from the poles, sea water will no longer taste salty, and beasts of prey will do man's bidding.
posted by Robot at 4:27 PM
5 Comments:
You also forgot that humans, instead of walking, will be lifted by warm clouds of air smelling faintly of fresh baked cookies. We will be able to lose unwanted hair by mere act of will, and even excessive amounts of Mexican food will not make you fat.
(I preface this comment with little actual knowledge of "liberation theology")
But seriously, The issue with religion is a peculiar at times but rather concrete at heart one, I believe. The hackneyed old Marx quote is a fine summation, religion is the opiate of the masses, a manifestation of ideology that is ultimately aligned with the material means and modes of production. Althusser includes churches as a site of ideological reproduction, a means of reproduction of the means of production. Its clear to see how discursive power like this translates into real power, but I think that at no point can it be benign or turned to good.
On the one hand there is the possibility of demagoguery, and even if liberation is preached, I expect a sort of revolutionary simulacrum from the pulpit with no true change behind it.
Religion's context is essentially one of identity, the assertion of the particular is constrictive, and fails to establish any real generic equality (generic in the sense of recognizing human equality as such as it stems from what might be described as a kernel of resistance to any construction, the generic and nameless part of man which refuses to become victim, servant, or party). Equality or liberation in the context of ideology will always require a further set of beliefs and systems, the so-called master signifier is merely shuffled around to make it appear that a benign force, conveniently 'exterior' to human experience, is in the role of master.
Now! If we're speaking of socialist strategy, the rub is in a different direction. Food to eat is food to eat, even from the hands of the torturer. There is clearly something to be said for advancement in baisic needs and services, but humans are not dogs, food and a back yard to spend liesure time in are insufficient to recognize any true human dignity (this seems to be the extent of liberalism's belief in human equality, IMO). Thus, these sort of minimal 'democratic' demands, insofar as they can even be fulfilled under the current system, are perhaps one step (Here's Trotsky's contribution...), The next is the movement towards somewhat more radical demands- from subsistence to equity. These are rightly defined as transitional, as they test the tensions within the system, demanding the still reasonable but often unattainable, creating the groundwork for more radical change.
Liberation theology, the uniting of socialism/marxism with religion, &c. seem to be a fair match (blessed are the meek, feed the needy, equal equal yadda yadda) but this is not so. It may be the case that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but only if we can be sure never to forget that they're all in the end bedfellows.
Robot-
Thanks for including the picture of Chavez and Nutso. We need more KEWL GRAPHIX on the blog to liven things up. So far we've got a newborn puppy, neo-Nazi twins, and Uncle Hugie. Can we say cuddly all around???
But anyway, I think Chavez was way out of line with the "los mismos que crucificaron a Christo" line. You don't rub shoulders with Ahmadinejad and then talk about the wealth of the world being collected in the hands of the "few," the same ones who killed Christ. How many times have persecuted Jews heard that old anti-Semitic chestnut? Also, considering Chavez runs with Iran, he's plausibly making a US/Israel connection in his rhetoric. Sure, the imperialists=America. But for many, many people, not necessarily South Americans but people Chavez wouldn't mind courting, America=Israel. Dunno, seems plausible and also scary.
As for the Marxism/religion thing, it has always struck me as a particularly snobbish (and intellectually lazy) trait of Marxism to deride religion as something inherently opposed to true radical change. Organized, bourgeois religion perhaps, but this does not justify the intense pressure, even violence, exerted on religious believers by Communists in the past (e.g. the Maoist Cultural Revolution, the "New Martyrs" of the Russian Orthodox Church at the beginning of the Soviet Union, etc.)
This tendency to lump all religious thought into the category of "bourgeois enemy" overlooks the important work done by Christian Socialists such as Thomas J. Haggerty, a priest and one of the founders of the IWW, and Karl Polanyi, the economic thinker. These people found in the teachings of Jesus some of the earliest ideas of communal living, equal rights, emancipating from worldly goods, etc. Religion is actually an ingenious way to spread the ideology of communism (in a sort of inverted example, think of early Christianity gaining popularity among aristocratic pagan women). Typically, however, it was easier to gulag the lot of them.
I have to strongly disagree with the Sheriff on a few of his points, beginning with this one: "On the one hand there is the possibility of demagoguery, and even if liberation is preached, I expect a sort of revolutionary simulacrum from the pulpit with no true change behind it." This is essentialist thinking that presupposes something inherent in Christianity that will oppose radical change. And demagoguery? Oh, that *never* happened among Communists themselves... Everyone and everything is susceptible.
Next, at length: "Religion's context is essentially one of identity, the assertion of the particular is constrictive, and fails to establish any real generic equality (generic in the sense of recognizing human equality as such as it stems from what might be described as a kernel of resistance to any construction, the generic and nameless part of man which refuses to become victim, servant, or party)."
If by "essentially" here you mean "usually" or "generally," you might be right. Otherwise I think you are succumbing to notions of essential qualities again. Additionally, your definition of equality begs all sorts of questions about victimhood, party affiliation etc--is the widespread recognition of this faculty of resistance found only under Communism? What are we supposed to envisage as far as "the assertion of the particular"? What particularities will be birthed under Communism which are unavailable under capitalism?
Your final paragraph is a final instance of your categorical thinking: "Liberation theology, the uniting of socialism/marxism with religion, &c. seem to be a fair match (blessed are the meek, feed the needy, equal equal yadda yadda) but this is not so."
So, even though both ideologies sound remarkably similar and the seeds of socialistic thought can be effectively harvested and distributed from the teachings of Jesus, some *essential* quality makes the two, in the end, incompatible. So much for the particulars. As I said in my Fish/Jesus post, Christianity is as gay as its followers want it to be. Just insert "Marxist" for "gay" and you've got my thinking on the present matter too. But perhaps the Marxists *did* weigh the options pragmatically, and they just found it easier to persecute religion wholesale. Nonetheless, I think this was to their massive detriment.
I don't wish to bring the gavel down too hard here, nor do I want to merely acho Austin from the VD Hanson thread, but I do have problems with theoretical jargon taking the place of real-world historical fact and praxis. Perhaps, Sheriff, it would be helpful if you formulated a post that effectively explained terms like "radical change," "equity," "particulars," etc. I'm serious, this would greatly clear things up for me and I wouldn't have to sound like an ass when I have no idea what they mean.
Oh, and of course "food and a backyard" are not the only things necessary for human flourishing under liberalism. One also enjoys freedom of association, freedom to congregate, worship, educate onself, appeal to one's government, etc. In short, rights focus on the individual precisely so that he or she has the best possible opportunity to act and react communally, i.e. in both traditional and chosen groups. Perhaps you've forgotten that "food and a backyard" is a much more apt description of East Germany than Memphis, TN.
Argh, I posted right after loplop. I'm reading now, I will respond to his points if I find any contentious ones.
First, Loplop, I think I am discussing the Real in this sense. Also, I agree with you. LT is populism in this sense, and thus makes for a poor bunk-mate or whatnot. Perhaps I understated it. However, I think that some gains are not to be turned down on a purely pragmatic level, yet recognizing the difficulty "winning the battle but losing the war." Trying to say, crudely, take from them what they'll give us, but let us not lose sight of both our and their true objectives/motives.
Scantron:
I never justified any actions of former communist states against religions/religious people/etc. In fact, I dont think I've attempted to justify anything they did. I'd willingly agree with you that these groups were often the quickest to abuse propaganda and engage in demagoguery. There's no love lost for me there.
Of course I'm speaking in general, I'm not trying to essentialize even though my rhetoric was swinging that way. But I am speaking in general. Also, homology is not the same as analogy. Granted many christian socialists, christians, and other religious people have had many of the same desires in mind as Marxists. This does not, however, bind the two together so much. On one hand I don't think that either of these philosophies are consequentialist, and they seem to have rather different reasons/means for the equality.
I'm sorry for all my theoretical jargon, I didn't think I was being too indulgent, and most of the time I'm trying to use the natural senses of the terms you put in scare quotes (eg. particular being something which includes some but not all members of a group, from the dictionary), if its confusing blame my writing.
Listen, I didn't include real world examples because I was, as i thought i expressed, just stating my opinions, commenting as it were. Also, most of the points I made were ones trying to look at definion and if not essence then characteristics of a thing, what makes it this and not that. But apparently it didn't fly so I'll stop.
I'm down. Good publication from what I can tell. How much is it for one subscription?
Post a Comment
<< Home