====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
I think Dan and Manuel's contributions are relatively 'flat'. I think they express and define god-belief fairly accurately by miss a potentially bigger picture. They *assume* and I certainly infer, that they think god-belief is the reason people are hooked into religion. Certainly that it true for some. And certainly many in some religions feel that way or members of these religions define themselves by the centrality of believing in god. However, I think such an analysis is relatively useless, dogmatic and while somewhat factually correct, hardly explains a thing. In fact, I think they 'cast' blame *at* the belief in god (for much of the worlds problems, maybe) rather than, well, let's just say those without sin should cast the first stones: the failure of the workers movement to build a strong secular *alternative* to religion. I work with co-workers who are often very religious. What organized religion does is not offer only a way for people to express their beliefs (or misbeliefs?) but is much more than that. Above all it provides a form of *community* lacking in our class due to the demise of class consciousness, the unions and secular left in general over the last 60 years or so. It's offers gathering places, a place of peace and or solace, it provides a *spiritual* uplifting for many (not in the 'god' sense but 'spirit' as defined as strong feeling of well being among those sharing a common goal) that in Europe, or parts of Latin America is or was expressed by the socialist and revolutionary movements. One does not have to read Gramsci to understand this. Until class consciousness can develop again through a live, dynamic labor movement, such discussions over the religion tend to be abstractions will little real outcome one way or another. Thus Dan and Manual have a misplaced resentment, it seems to me, toward *individuals* (and leftist who fail to take up their crusade) who hold non-materialist points of view as if simply *winning the argument* will determine the outcome of what people believe in. I would hold this view, if I have it correctly, is totally devoid of a materialist understanding of the role religion *and* god-belief plays in individual lives. It a form of mechanical-materialism that provides no answers and no direction toward getting workers involved in the class struggle. In fact, I see their POV more as an *obstacle* to winning workers toward not only action around common class demands but even toward revolutionary Marxism. First and foremost is meeting and organizing around those common class interests wouldn't you say? If you argue the issue of god at every opportunity, you do nothing but alienate those that would be willing to meet you in struggle against the bosses interests. This is why I think Dan, most notably, probably doesn't follow through on what he says others should do, except here on the internet. When we are engaged in a fight, does it really make a difference in the fight on the barricades, the picket line or at a mass meeting what it is that motivates those that are there? Seriously? >From my own experience, I know people with the weirdest beliefs who have had my back and are by no means leftists but know which side of the class line they stand for. We discuss god, gods and godesses *after* the fight. Over beer. Amongst friends. David ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
