On 8/20/06, Yoshie wrote:
> In the United States, it is Marxists, more often than > the religious, who risk ending up becoming liberation theologians > without any base communities, so to speak. Almost all religious > activists on the Left I know -- Christian, Muslim, Sikh, whatever* -- > are active through their own congregations of faith and often > ecumenically networked with religious activists of other faiths as > well as irreligious activists. In contrast, many Marxists I know tend > to be loose cannons, with no institution that they can call their home > base.
I wrote:
> me again: of course all the activists you know are active!
On 8/21/06, Yoshie answered:
What I mean is that religious activists are active in and through their own congregation, denomination, etc. and have bases of social and political action. Not so with rootless Marxists in the USA -- we have no mass Marxist institution comparable to the Presbyterian Church USA that binds as as Marxists and gives us local, national, and international bases of social and political action.
I think that's more a matter of the weakness of the Marxists than the strength of the religious. BTW, the Presbyterians are pretty weak these days in the US, as are most "mainstream" religious groups. Unlike the "evangelicals," pentacostal, and charismatic types. And when the Anglicans/Episcopalians tried to move in a more progressive direcition (female and gay bishops) this led to splitting. [Hey, maybe these guys _are_ Marxist! ;-) ]
> I was > making a _materialist_ point about the importance of the world-view's > social context: what's important is the connection to movements. And, > as suggested by what followed in my missive, what kind of movement > they're attached to is important, very important.
Yoshie:
There clearly are mass organizations and movements based on Islam in the Middle East -- Hizballah and Hamas being two most prominent examples of them. I can't think of any secular Marxist organization or movement in the Middle East of equivalent stature.
I think it's a mistake to put too much weight on the size or strength of these organizations. It's also a mistake to put too much weight on their ideologies (Shi'a and Sunni Islam, respectively). What's important is what they do _in practice_. (I share Hobbes' and Marx's contempt for "mere words.") Now they are fighting against Israeli colonialism and expansionism. But what are they doing to increase and improve the independent organization of workers, women, ethnic minorities within their spheres, etc.? Yoshie:
> Looking back on the history of state socialism, I'd have to > say that the way socialist states have organized civil society > institutions can be called "corporatist," ** much like the way the > Islamic state of Iran has. Under formerly and actually existing > socialist societies, trade unions, women's organizations, ethnic > organizations, etc. have never been autonomous. *** I believe that > neither Marxism nor any variety of religion should become the official > philosophy of a state.
me:
> this is not new. The style of organization that "state socialism" > creates depends not only on the intentions of the ruling party or > parties but also the social conditions under which they operate. For > example, in the Russian revolution, the grass-roots soviets had a very > hard time surviving as independent institutions because of the civil > war, imperialist invasions, and a economic melt-down. As a second > example, it's hard for Cuba to be anything but "corporatist" – since > U.S.-led imperialism won't allow democracy.
Yoshie, now:
Yes, but any time any movement tries to expropriate a large part of the foreign and domestic ruling class assets, it will always face capital flight, brain drains, civil wars, imperialist invasions, covert actions, etc. So, if such conditions inevitably give rise to corporatism, then, corporatism may be the short-term destiny of any social revolution. The question is if the revolution can overcome its short-term destiny once it consolidates itself, having overcome civil wars, etc., notwithstanding being still threatened by the multinational empire.
Sure, non-progressive, non-socialist type organizations are needed in the face of imperialism and the like, but again we must ask: what is the organization doing to the increase and improve the independent organization of workers, women, ethnic minorities within their spheres, etc.?
> Anyway, this misses my point: I was saying that the socialist or > progressive character of a _religions_ government depends on the > degree to which women's, workers', ethnic minorities', etc. > organizations are independent of the state. I wasn't saying that a > Marxist-led government was automatically good or that a religious-led > government was automatically bad. (However, I do think that Marxism is > a better guide to practice than is religion. A lot of the good stuff > in liberation theology came from Marxism or from encountering similar > social conditions.)
Yoshie:
A lot of good stuff in Marxism, some say, comes from religion, mediated by left-Hegelianism. So, I'd say influences have been mutual.
I'm not one who interprets Marxism as involving atheism (of the sort that tries to suppress religion, as under Stalin). So I see nothing wrong with dialoguing with religious sorts. Yoshie:
> Jewish leftists appear to me to be an exception here: they tend to > be atheists or at least agnostics, and they tend not to participate in > even secular Jewish community activities. Perhaps, that is because > most Jewish leftists are either anti-Zionist or non-Zionist whereas > most major Jewish institutions, religious or secular, are dominated by > Zionists.
me:
> most of the Jewish activists I know are involved in a secular Jewish > organization (Sholem) that's pretty anti-Zionist, though not > officially.
Yoshie:
That's pretty unusual. Mike Friedman, on the Marxism listserv, humorously referred to himself as a "piss-poor" Jew. That seems to me to be the norm. Most Jewish leftists don't seem to gravitate toward religious or secular ethnic Jewish organizations. That has an impact on the public perception of Jewish political opinion, which tends to be misunderstood and seen as far to the right of what it is, due to the propaganda promulgated by the major Jewish organizations' leaders, none of whom is a leftist.
the state and the political establishment (including AIPAC) encourage all of the positive publicity for the "major" Jewish organization leaders and their organizations. It's an alliance. BTW, Sholem is part of national and international organizations of similarly-minded Jews. Further, when Friedman calls himself a "piss-poor" Jew, he's likely refering to the Jewish religion. The Sholemites and fellow thinkers emphasize the Jewish ethnicity. (One can be Italian without being Catholic, so one can be Jewish without being religious.) -- Jim Devine / "Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate."-- Bertrand Russell
