Liberation Theology - Christiantiy and Marxism?

[Borincano]

What is this all really about? Do you believe it's possible to actually have a combination of Marxist principles and the principles of Christiantity? Do you think Theology of Liberation movements have made an impact, partically in Latin American, on society and how people view religion and politics?

[Beccie]

Liberation theology was developed in the wake of the second Vatican council. The political/social/economical situations in Latin America were a major influence to the development of this theology.

Liberation theology is deeply connected to the social dimensions of the Gospels. It is concerned with the struggle of the poor against their oppressors hence its connections with Marxism.

At the time of the development of Liberation theology Salvadoran arch bishop Oscar Romero preached for freedom of the Oppressed. He denounced the corrupt government, just as Jesus denounced the Pharisees for being part of social structures that were the direct cause of poverty and violence. He was shoot whilst delivering a homily.


(Edited by Commie01 at 11:44 am on Feb. 15, 2003)

[redstar2000]

That "liberation theology" has had an impact on politics in Latin America is undeniable...particularly in rural areas, I imagine.

The question of whether it is actually possible to combine Christian and Marxist principles is a different one. I do not think it is possible.

Marxism draws its conclusions about the world based on evidence. Christianity looks at the world through the eyes of "divine revelation"...evidence is irrelevant.

Consequently, it's perfectly possible (though unlikely) for a Christian to be "pro-communist"...on the grounds that communism is a "morally superior" social order vs. capitalism. But a sincere Christian would find Marxist principles unacceptable because they deny "God's existence."

Historically, Christians have seen communist ideas as a "threat" so dire that they have been willing to form alliances with fascists and Nazis to "stop communism." I don't really expect that to change in any significant way.

To the extent that people motivated by the principles of "liberation theology" actually oppose the old landed aristocracy and military dictators in Latin America, they might be considered mildly "progressive". But to rely on such folks as a force for serious revolutionary change on that unhappy continent is, in my view, ludicrous.

:cool:

[ravengod]

hey redstar why are you so anti God anyway?
did you ever wonder that He could laugh his ass out when seeing you so tough in preaching atheism?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Many Latin Americans are pro-Communim, (or some form of a leftist movement) and Christian at the same time.
Take Brazil for example, nearly 100% of the population is Christian (most Catholic, some protestant) and since the oppressive right-wing dictatorship, it is very hard to find someone who calls him or herself a member of the right-wing, though many parties are right-wing, they call themselves central on the political scale.
Also, in Brazil, the newly elected President, Lula, is far left wing.

Like I said earlier somewhere else, I don't think that anything will have to be done on the part of the government to end the power of religions once Communism is attained. The church will wither away as it already has begun to in more socialy evolved nations.

[redstar2000]

Ravengod, I'm not "anti-God". How can I be "anti" something that doesn't exist?

What I am opposed to is "the religious view" of the world because (1) it's factually wrong and (2) in practice, it's social role is reactionary.

Victorcommie, at the moment I dispute your characterization of Lula as "far left"...let's wait until he openly defies the International Monetary Fund before we start applauding!

I did say that it's possible to be Christian and "pro-communist." But before I would start generalizing about an entire continent, I would require tons of detailed information...which Christians? "Pro-communist" in what sense? In which countries? Etc.

I admire your optimism about the "withering away of religion" and I hope you're right about that.

Unfortunately, nasty things in this world rarely just "wither away".

:cool:

[Beccie]

Redstar2000,

You are right when you say that Marxism is based on evidence and religion is not but there is a connection between Liberation theology and Marxism. Both Marxism and LT preach freedom/liberation to the oppressed.

[Pete]

Can someone do a synopsis of the Liberation Theory?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Consequently, it's perfectly possible (though unlikely) for a Christian to be "pro-communist"...on the grounds that communism is a "morally superior" social order vs. capitalism. But a sincere Christian would find Marxist principles unacceptable because they deny "God's existence."
Now hold on a second. I'm a devout Christian and a strong Marxist, and I have no problem with that. Try reading the New Testament while leaving out all the parts about God. What do you end up with? Pure leftism.


What I am opposed to is "the religious view" of the world because (1) it's factually wrong and (2) in practice, it's social role is reactionary.
False.
Jesus was a revolutionary. All his followers for the next few hundred years were radical egalitarians and anti-authoritarians. Early Christians lived in the first socialist communities since the prehistoric age.

The fact that Christianity has been corrupted by reactionary forces in the past 1000 years is another matter. What we must keep in mind is that, with enough work, any amount of corruption can be undone. If Christianity were to return to its revolutionary origins, we would have nearly 2 billion new comrades in our ranks! Passing this opportunity would be insane. We must not antagonize Christians, we must try to make them understand that we are on the same side!

[Invader Zim]

The question was could you combine the principles of marxism and christianity. As long as you consider the principals of christianity to basically the major consepts of religion, Ie peace, no killing, no stealing, no adultary etc. I can see no reason why you cant follow these principals and not be socialist

What Redstar2000 is saying is perfectly true as well however, and i completly agree, it just depends on what you consider to be christian principals, or which christian principals you are talking about.

PS, i am an athiest by the way. Infact probably more than that.

[Conghaileach]

Religion can't be reconciled with Marxism, because Marxism is inherently atheist. One of the cornerstones of Marxism is its materialist rejection of the idea of divine beings.


Christianity tells people to turn the other cheek at suffering, because they'll be rewarded by being granted entrance into "heaven". An idea the bourgeoisie would obviously like to propagate, because of its pacifying effects on people.

Communism, not just Marxism, believes in the class struggle. We believe in people rising from their knees and taking control of their own lives. Religion likes to see people on their knees before "God", while they fill up the collection boxes.

[Severian]

I think a Christian, or a believer in another religion, can support the political program of communism. Many actively do. But this is despite the religion, not because of it.

Philosophically, Marxism and Christianity are incompatible - partly for the reasons Ciaran explained. Also, Marxism is materialist, and seeks to understand history and the universe in terms of material causes, not a divine plan.

[Umoja]

Christianity and Marxism don't really go together. Now, other leftist philosophies can work with Christianity, but not all of them. If I were to say Christianity "worked with" a government/economic system, I'd say anarchy.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

What you're saying, Ciaran, is that Christianity is ultra-pacifist in nature, while Marxism is not. Yes, I agree that this might be a problem, but it only has to do with the actual revolution, not for the Marxist political program that would be implemented afterwards.

Severian, one of the main reasons why I became a Communist was because I was a Christian (and I actually intended to listen to what Jesus said, unlike most Christians these days). I am a living counter-example to your theory...

[Beccie]

one of the main reasons why I became a Communist was because I was a Christian (and I actually intended to listen to what Jesus said, unlike most Christians these days)

Same here, my interest in Communism and the left was largely influenced by my in depth study of the Gospels.

I think you will really like Liberation Theology. It is the only Christian Theology that I know of that accurately interprets what is in the Gospel.

[redstar2000]

The idea of Yeshuah as "revolutionary" pops up so often these days that I keep the text of what follows on my desktop for ease of copying and pasting:

Matthew 25
28 Take therefore the talent* from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. *a unit of currency

Sounds more like the manager at my local Wal-Mart than any kind of "communist".

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 1:56 am on May 12, 2003)

[Severian]

Yeah...whenever somebody says "I hold political belief X because of scripture" I tend to be pretty sceptical, no matter which political belief it is.

It's possible to find something in the Bible that seems to support, or can be interpreted as supporting, any opinion. Heck, maybe even somethng that really does, since the Bible was edited together from so many different, and sometimes contradictory, sources. People have beliefs for earthly reasons, and then go looking for the scripture to back it up. Everyone believes that God agrees with their own opinions - you might say they create a God in their own image.

So Biblical exegesis is usually a waste of time. That said, if anyone's going to do it, they should do it right. That's a parable, Redstar.

[redstar2000]

"That's a parable, Redstar".

Yes, Severian, and so what? The words don't still mean what they say?

I daresay a spiritual paint-job is at hand for this and other "uncomfortable" passages.

I suspect the whole idea of "parables" was probably an invention that followed the death of "Jesus". After all, some of the stuff he said was really awful. Giving a "reinterpretation" might have been useful or even necessary for the cult to grow.

Still, there's one that I think should put an end to further speculation about the "communist Jesus": the poor ye shall always have with thee.

We do think otherwise, do we not?

:cool:

[Conghaileach]

There's a joke I've heard that goes, "there are many Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, some of whom are Christian".

We really don't have much of an idea what it means to be Christian. Hell, Dubya claims to be a good Christian!

And who can tell for sure what Jesus said? As redstar put it, some of it may have been revised after his death.

On the issue of Jesus, I think it undebatable that there was a Jesus. Even the Jews and Muslims accept him as a prophet, while Christians of course see him as the Messiah. The question though is, was he really the immaculately-conceived, gestated-within-three-weeks, son of God?

Hm.

[Umoja]

Redstar, I've interpreted that parable before when you used it on Politicsforum, if you want me to post what I said I can.

This one isn't exactly a good example of a parable I might add, so Redstar may have a point about this one being changed. Although it is still quite odd, to complain that the story isn't straightforward, because apparently Jesus wasn't trying to give people direct answers, but to let them find the answers themselves.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Matthew 25
28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth
Behold the power of out-of-context quotes!

You know, maybe you should read on a few lines:

34
"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

35
'For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;

36
naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.'

37
"Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink?

38
'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?

39
'When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?'

40
"The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'

41
"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;

42
for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;

43
I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'

44
"Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'

45
"Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'

46
"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

[RedJaX]

Edric dude, your comments on jesus and his political views were some of the smartest i've ever heard. Those verses from the bible could easily be excerpts from some kind of Marxist book. Total leftist high man, thanks.

[Comrade Gorley]

First off,

Christianity is not pacifist, at least not as a whole. Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek as individuals. If someone pisses us off but isn't hurting anybody else, just take it. However, listen to this:

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
-Luke 22:36

He said that we should carry a sword; not that we should be actively bloodthirsty but still ready to fight. Isn't this Che's philosophy?

Also, as I told "Donut Master" here (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=11&topic=3613), the context of the quote is that Jesus is rewarding the servant who works the hardest and punishing the one who doesn't- the epitome of Marx's theory of judging one's worth by their products. The good servant is the proletariat and the lazy one is the burgeoise.

And tell me this isn't a communist speech:

Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.
Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets. But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep. Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.
-Luke 6: 20-26

Deuteronomy 20 is about God instructing the people of Israel to go to war against the oppresive anti-Semites. Listen to THIS verse and call the Bible pacifist:

And the officers shall speak further unto the people, and they shall say, What man is there that is fearful and fainthearted? let him go and return unto his house, lest his brethren's heart faint as well as his heart.
-Deuteronomy 20:8

And there's no doubt that Jesus was a liberal revolutionary. IN Matthew 21:12-17, he sees the "moneychangers", who are basically using the temple as a revenue for earning money. He runs through the temple, overturning tables and chairs, and according to John 2:15 he actually used a cord as a whip. Compare that to the typical image of a kindly hippie in a white priest's robe.

Anyway, I heard once that Karl Marx actually based some of his ideas on a communist utopia on the Gospel of John. Whether or not this is true, I'll let you decide: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/bibl...e_communism.htm (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/bible/blfaq_bible_communism.htm)

But as for me, I'm a Christian communist.

[Umoja]

I've heard Baha'i writters say that turning the other cheek, means only that you shouldn't strike back immediately otherwise it'd be in revenge, and revenge is bad.

[Severian]

Another out-of-context quote, Redstar. There certainly is a lot reactionary crap in the Bible - Paul advising slaves to be obedient comes to mind - but really, you're doing an awful job of proving it.

There's good reason to think that the "reinterpretation" was in the direction of making Christianity more acceptable to the powers that be. See Kautsky's book Foundations of Christianity for more on this.

By all accounts,early Christians practiced a kind of utopian communism. That doesn't mean that Christianity is compatible with Marxism.

[redstar2000]

Gee, Severian, for someone who is supposed to be opposed to this reactionary crap, you're doing an awful job of attacking it.

Neither of my quotes appears to me to be "out of context" in any way. The notion that the "profitable" servant represents the proletariat and the "unprofitable" servant represents the bourgeoisie is untenable; how did the "profitable" servants make those talents? Go look for yourself.

There are quotes attributed to Yeshuah that are both pacifist and militarist...suggesting the conflicting views of those who wrote the "gospels" if not Yeshuah himself. That has nothing to do with communism.

The "communism" described in the "Acts of the Apostles" must have been a fairly brief affair; there's nothing I know of off hand in the genuine letters of Paulos of Tarsus that refers to it explicitly; no suggestion that the early Christian groups that Paulos organized followed the practices described that took place in Jerusalem after Yeshuah's execution.

Those who suggest that acts of charity are in some vague sense "communist" simply don't understand what communism is.

It is not a matter of "helping people"...it is about liberation from wage-slavery.

There's a big difference.

:cool:

[Umoja]

People seem to want to lump a moral system with an economic system. That's the main problem. Christianity isn't a method for governing a country.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The quote is out of context, Redstar, because it is a parable. It's a story about a master and his 3 slaves, and what each of them does with what his master had given him. If that's not a parable, then what is it? A story Jesus told for fun?

Yes, Jesus did advocate a number of things which could be considered "militarist", but notice that none of them actually involve hurting people. Jesus was a pacifist, and I admire him for that.

I am a pacifist myself. I only believe in the use of violence as a last resort. I don't see why Communism *must* be applied through a violent revolution. Any way to overthrow the bourgeois exploiters is good.

The Communism described in the Acts of the Apostles lasted for hundreds of years in Christian communities, as contemporary Romans testify. Paul doesn't mention it in his letters, but he also doesn't mention any other lifestyle or social organization. He didn't write the letters in order to describe Christian society, you know...

That being said, I don't see how you can expect the movement for the liberation of the working class to take the exact same form 2000 years ago as it does today. The point is that both modern-day Communists AND the first Christians struggled for that goal, each in the form most suitable for their specific time period.

[redstar2000]

Like Christians usually do, Edric, you slide glibly past the plain words of the Bible in search of a socially-acceptable "secret" meaning.

First of all, the master did not "give" anyone anything; he "entrusted" various sums to his "servants" (perhaps the original really says "slaves" but "servants" seems to be the usual translation. "Employees" might be an appropriate word.).

The "profitable" servants invested the money in what we would now call commodity specualtion...and made a profit. Both the original investment and the profit were returned to the "master". The "unprofitable" servant simply buried the money that was left him and dug it up and returned it to the "master".

To what exactly do you think Yesuah was referring? The "master" in this parable is the Kingdom of Heaven itself.

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?...+25&version=KJV (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=Matthew+25&version=KJV)

To "reap where ye sow not" is the ambition of the greedy then...as now. In the Christian Heaven as it is on earth.

"The Communism described in the Acts of the Apostles lasted for hundreds of years in the Christian communities, as contemporary Romans testify." -- emphasis added.

Of course, I have not read widely in those sources but my impression is that contemporary Roman historians and philosophers either ignored Christianity as unworthy of mention or, when they did mention it, regarded it as a barbaric superstition. Convinced of their own imperial superiority, they tended to lump all the eastern "mystery religions" together as fit only for women and slaves.

I know of no contenporary source for early Christian "communism" except the "Acts of the Apostles" itself, limited to Jerusalem and, at most, to the period between the execution of Yeshuah and the destruction of the Temple.

As others here can verify, I'm always willing to look at fresh evidence on a subject; if you have a link on this, Eric, I'll certainly check it out.

But Paulos of Tarsus certainly does at least mention, in passing, the social arrangements of the early Christians. Some were wealthy enough to own private dwellings. Some even owned slaves. Some were evidently workers.

The only thing that Christians shared was a sacred meal, a "love feast", and even then, if I recall correctly, there were some present who ate better than others. If more than that was shared, the historian would expect Paulos to at least hint at such an arrangement. It ain't there.

The only "liberation" that the "New Testament" speaks of, as far as I can remember, is "freedom from sin" and "eternal salvation in Heaven". This is something that is granted to the faithful "by the grace of God".

What communists want is freedom from wage-slavery here on earth...not something that is "granted" but something that is won in struggle against an exploiting class.

Are you suggesting that Christianity was an "early form of class struggle"? Well, perhaps it was. So what?

That has no relevance to the present era. As far as I am aware, everywhere that one finds an organized religion, one finds ruthless hostility towards communism. I'm forced to admit--and deplore--the fact that they know their enemy a lot better than we know ours.

As far as "liberation theology" is concerned, it's a fake. A few scraps of Marxist terminology pinned to the corpus of a reactionary social viewpoint does not a communist make. It was begun and is maintained by people who want to stop the spread of communist ideas among the exploited and oppressed, who want to make Christianity "relevant" again. When they print up and distribute a portrait of Che with a crown of thorns, it's pretty easy to see what they're getting at.

It's called co-optation and it's a well-worn weapon in the arsenal of every ruling class.

Real communists have for too long ignored or shrugged off this problem. To pretend that we can overthrow a ruling class and keep it overthrown while ignoring one of its crucial ideological supports is foolishly optimistic.

Down with all gods!

:cool:

[Borincano]

Are there any "liberation theologies" in other religions, besides Christianity?

[Comrade Hyueh]

like liberation theology in Islam?

[Borincano]

Quote: from Comrade Hyueh on 1:42 am on May 14, 2003
like liberation theology in Islam?

I don't think there is one in Islam, but yeah, in other religions, like Buddhism or Judaism.

[redstar2000]

There is both a Jewish version and an Islamic version of "liberation" theology.

Those folks know a good scam when they see one and have not been slow to copy it.

:cool:

[Comrade Gorley]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:37 am on May 14, 2003
Like Christians usually do, Edric, you slide glibly past the plain words of the Bible in search of a socially-acceptable "secret" meaning.

First of all, the master did not "give" anyone anything; he "entrusted" various sums to his "servants" (perhaps the original really says "slaves" but "servants" seems to be the usual translation. "Employees" might be an appropriate word.).

The "profitable" servants invested the money in what we would now call commodity specualtion...and made a profit. Both the original investment and the profit were returned to the "master". The "unprofitable" servant simply buried the money that was left him and dug it up and returned it to the "master".

To what exactly do you think Yesuah was referring? The "master" in this parable is the Kingdom of Heaven itself.

I don't quite realize what you're trying to say, unless you're arguing against yourself. Yes, the Kingdom of Heaven serves as the communist leader in this case. And the servants are the people. So?


http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=Matthew+25&version=KJV

To "reap where ye sow not" is the ambition of the greedy then...as now. In the Christian Heaven as it is on earth.

Sorry but this is ridiculous. Let me quote Marx directly from "The Communist Manifesto":


The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer. What, therefore, the wage laborer appropriates by means of his labor merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labor, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labor of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the laborer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.

This is EXACTLY what the parable teaches. What happens when the "profitable" servant comes back with more money than he started with? He is made a ruler. The "unprofitable" is killed. In the same way, the proletarian works and becomes the ruler and the lazy burgeoise are eliminated.




"The Communism described in the Acts of the Apostles lasted for hundreds of years in the Christian communities, as contemporary Romans testify." -- emphasis added.

Of course, I have not read widely in those sources but my impression is that contemporary Roman historians and philosophers either ignored Christianity as unworthy of mention or, when they did mention it, regarded it as a barbaric superstition. Convinced of their own imperial superiority, they tended to lump all the eastern "mystery religions" together as fit only for women and slaves.

And likewise the American "intellectuals" renounced communism as a pipe dream that only fools acted on. The more blindly patriotic actually worked to eliminate it. Likewise Rome disregarded Christianity but the totalarian Nero actually commited crimes (burning of Rome, etc) and blamed it on the Christians. The first "red conspiracy", if you will.


I know of no contenporary source for early Christian "communism" except the "Acts of the Apostles" itself, limited to Jerusalem and, at most, to the period between the execution of Yeshuah and the destruction of the Temple.

As others here can verify, I'm always willing to look at fresh evidence on a subject; if you have a link on this, Eric, I'll certainly check it out.

Here's one:
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/christ...an-history.html (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/christian-history.html)

Read these extra-biblical writings. You can FEEL the communism.


But Paulos of Tarsus certainly does at least mention, in passing, the social arrangements of the early Christians. Some were wealthy enough to own private dwellings. Some even owned slaves. Some were evidently workers.

Correct me if I'm wrong (which I may well be), but I'm quite sure that Philemon was called simply "a believer". It is never stated that he was a member of the church. He was, if you will, a "communist sympethizer".


The only thing that Christians shared was a sacred meal, a "love feast", and even then, if I recall correctly, there were some present who ate better than others. If more than that was shared, the historian would expect Paulos to at least hint at such an arrangement. It ain't there.

I have heard nothing on this subject; please educate me further.


The only "liberation" that the "New Testament" speaks of, as far as I can remember, is "freedom from sin" and "eternal salvation in Heaven". This is something that is granted to the faithful "by the grace of God".

What communists want is freedom from wage-slavery here on earth...not something that is "granted" but something that is won in struggle against an exploiting class.

Paul, being a former Pharisee, was the most conservative apostle, and actually although he established most of the churches and shared his doctorine with the churches he had little real impact on how they operated. Mainly James the Just and the Apostle Paul operated them, which is why the early church was so communistic.


Are you suggesting that Christianity was an "early form of class struggle"? Well, perhaps it was. So what?
That has no relevance to the present era. As far as I am aware, everywhere that one finds an organized religion, one finds ruthless hostility towards communism. I'm forced to admit--and deplore--the fact that they know their enemy a lot better than we know ours.

If class struggles in the past don't matter, why are you posting on a Che Guevara message board? These past revolutions can give us encouragement, inspiration, and can serve as role models in general. Even (good) capitalists acknowledge this. And communism is recognized everywhere as bringing hostility and unrest. Is this the intent or theory of communism? No. And likewise with Christianity. And if they know their enemy well, shouldn't they only serve as better role models?


As far as "liberation theology" is concerned, it's a fake. A few scraps of Marxist terminology pinned to the corpus of a reactionary social viewpoint does not a communist make. It was begun and is maintained by people who want to stop the spread of communist ideas among the exploited and oppressed, who want to make Christianity "relevant" again. When they print up and distribute a portrait of Che with a crown of thorns, it's pretty easy to see what they're getting at.
It's called co-optation and it's a well-worn weapon in the arsenal of every ruling class.
Real communists have for too long ignored or shrugged off this problem. To pretend that we can overthrow a ruling class and keep it overthrown while ignoring one of its crucial ideological supports is foolishly optimistic.

Down with all gods!

:cool:

Well, that's your opinion, and I've just shared mine. I'm fairly sure neither of us will become communist dictators so neither of them amount to much. But, hey, as long as you aren't, the cappies will still push the First Amendant, and so will I.

Similiarities of Christianity to Communism:

1. Christianity was founded by a Jew (Jesus Christ), yet many "Christians" persecute the Jews.
Communism was founded by a Jew (Karl Marx), yet many "communists" persecute the Jews.

2. Christianity is often viewed as idealistic, outdated and impossible.
Communism is often viewed as idealistic, failed and impossible.

3. Hitler used Christianity as a facade.
Hitler used socialism as a facade.

4. The man most people associate with Christianity (the Pope) is hardly a good representation of it.
The man most people associate with Communism (Stalin) was hardly a good representation of it.

Any others?

[redstar2000]

I checked the link you offered, Comrade Gorley, but when I tried to read the individual pages, all I got was "server not found" messages.

Moreover, none of those pages seemed to refer to what I thought was controversial, namely the assertion that the "communism" of the Jerusalem Church was actually practiced anywhere else except Jerusalem.

Since I couldn't actually reach either of the two pages that I tried for, I didn't "feel the communism".

Yes, the "profitable servant" is indeed made a ruler...but you persist in ignoring the source of the profit. The chapter actually uses the word "usury" and the "master" makes it plain that he expects to gather where he has not sown.

How much clearer could the text be???

The quotation from Marx is accurate as far as I can tell, but irrelevant to this discussion. I've never heard of any Christian congregation excommunicating an employer for failing to pay an adequate wage to "his" employees. (A small number of Christian groups did excommunicate slave-owners from their congregations in colonial America...so we know it can be done.)

After that, you seem to mostly fall back on the accidental similarities between the social position of Christians prior to Constantine and the social position of communists in the capitalist world.

It's rather in the nature of dissident minorities to be "reviled and persecuted", is it not? That says nothing about the actual ideas of the persecuted. I'm quite sure that if you brought forward an American Nazi to talk on this board, he'd start in with tales about how the Nazis are persecuted, that white people are persecuted, blah, blah, blah. Wouldn't mean shit to me.

I am primarily interested in class struggles of the 19th and 20th centuries, because they clearly have the most to teach us, positive and negative, about the struggles of this century. The byzantine theological struggles of the early Christian church, on the other hand, I would consider recreational reading...I certainly can't see anything useful coming from that source. All sides were wildly irrational...not to mention murderous.

Criticize Stalin and Trotsky as much as you like; we have documentary and unimpeachable evidence that they were both capable of formulating a coherent and logical argument. Could the same be said of any theologian...ever?

"...the cappies will still push the First Amendment and so will I."

I see, Comrade Gorley, that you have a little problem with the Marxist analysis of the state...so let me clarify that "First Amendment" for you: they wrote it for them, not for us. "Free speech" in capitalist society was intended for those with property...and, of course, for those with views favorable to property.

Be careful with whom you ally yourself with; they will let you "worship" all you like...as long as in all other matters, you remain a "profitable (and obedient) servant."

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 4:01 am on May 15, 2003)