Radical Centrism vs. Transmodernism By: Billy Rojas . Radical Centrist philosophy is exactly that, an actual philosophy. Radical Centrism is not a series of opinions strung together and called a 'philosophy.' A genuine philosophy is a system of thought that has an epistemolgy (theory of knowledge) and well defined processes of reasoning. It is coherent, and it makes truth claims that either are verifiable or disconfirmable. It is carefully conceived, thought through, and consistent. There is an internal logic to a philosophy, and critical analysis based on standards of objectivity is part of everything else. . Not that a full fledged Radical Centrist philosophy has existed before now, expressed in weighty tomes; there is no Critique of Pure Radical Centrism currently available. Nor is there a book with a title like Das Radikal Zentristische. Nonetheless, we are in the process of developing such a political philosophy and philosophy of life. You are now reading a statement of our philosophy considered as a system. . Until now as much as had been formulated on the subject of Radical Centrist philosophy exists as a wide assortment of essays and e-mail exchanges, plus whatever private notes anyone cared to write and file for future reference. This paper provides an outline of the Radical Centrist system by contrasting it to another modern-era philosophy that parallels Radical Centrism in a number of ways. Still, there is much work to be done to create a full fledged system complete with detailed analyses of problems that a philosophy needs to resolve in order to be able to stand on its feet, to show that it can withstand criticism, and has potential for providing intellectual leadership in the future.
. We aren't where we would like to be, but we are getting there. This is important. because philosophy is all about how people think, what they regard as true, and values they reply upon in their lives. . Our objective is not simply to convince people to support proposals that make sense in current political controversies or election debates, but to convince people to adopt a whole way of thinking that can serve them well throughout life. It is about the life of the mind, cultivating personal intelligence, and becoming a better person. . Radical Centrism in this sense, which is essential to RC, is far more than a political philosophy, as important as that is. It is a philosophy of life, which is what most people think the concept of "philosophy" should be all about. . . There is another political philosophy that has some characteristics of Radical Centrism. But only some. For the most part it is a very different system of thought. But the similarities are a useful place to begin a discussion of Transmodernism, as it is called, to enable us to better understand what a Radical Centrist philosophy is, is not, and, by way of contrast, what it should be. . Transmodernism is the brainchild of of Enrique Dussel, born in Argentina but a citizen of Mexico for many years. Transmodernism began as a critique of Post Modernism, which Dussel rejected because of its denial of any meaningful role for spirituality in modern-day culture. As well, Dussel had no use for the relativistic and nihilistic views of various Post Modern artists and thinkers, something that disallowed society from developing the kind of value system it needs in order to bring about justice. . Dussel turned to history for some of his answers, hence his use of a Renaissance model of cultural renewal, his praise for the "unitarian" spirituality of Ralph Waldo Emerson and the Transcendentalists, and -a more recent phenomenon- Catholic "Liberation Theology." What is interesting is that in criticising Post Modernism, Dussel did not dispense with its entire program. He saw in its sense of style and free-ranging outlook something that could be incorporated into his new philosophy, combining spiritual emphasis with a spirit of playfulness and innovation. Hence Transmodernism would be constructed as a synthesis of religious tradition, Dussel's highly selective view of religion anyway, as well as modernism as usually understood, blended with Post Modern forms and something of its outlook on the world. In effect, Transmodernism is an eclectic version of Post Modernism but with a "soul transplant." . There is also a strong element of Marxist thought in Dussel's philosophy, especially his view that the purpose of his system of ideas is -and must be- the elevation of the poor of the Earth, the downtrodden, minorities, and everyone else who is marginalized in Capitalist society. But this is not conventional Marxism at all, nor the 'new Marxism' of the European Left. This is because for Dussel what allows for a successful mass movement of the dispossessed is reliance on tradition, hence the necessity of reverence for traditions of many kinds, all traditions that are cherished by the poor. Including religion and the arts. . Thus Dussel looks as far back as ancient Rome, or before, to defining myths and values still alive in the modern world, along with today's traditional lifestyles that are expressions of historic cultural ideas and values in the here-and-now. These are essential for a regenerated society, for a modern Renaissance. . Tradition is not obliterated as in "pure" Post Modernism but is made into something new by making it serve the cause of "liberation." This does mean modernizing old traditions, making them more relevant for modern-day men and women, but the traditions themselves are vital. Hence religious traditions may be joined to such things as Transpersonal Psychology (which originated with Abraham Maslow and includes various Esalen-derived ideas mixed in with Jorge Ferrer's emphasis on alternative religions, and concepts developed by Kenneth Wilber which ultimately are connected to the ideas of Sri Aurobindo). There is also an emphasis on feminism, and environmentalism. The mix may seem strange to Americans but apparently is 'natural' in the context of Marx-influenced Latin American politics. . Dussel set about creating a new political philosophy that would also resonate with people who have sympathies with Hugo Chavez, with the Zapatistas of Chiapas who mostly are Mayan Indian in background, with multi-culturalists generally, and with Leftist "peoples movements" around the world. But Dussel is not a standard issue Marxist; he has his own ideas which he has developed independently which include a good deal of analysis of the Bible and the politics of Hebrew messianism transposed into the 21st century. To repeat, he takes a dim view of secularization and wants to see spiritualized political movements arise and ultimately prevail. . Still, there is unmistakable affinity with the hard Left. Dussel's rants sometimes sound like Marxist boilerplate as he castigates "western imperialists," Euro-centric "cultural hegemony," and "American militarism." He is also a "third worlder," as his kind of outlook has been characterized, and talks incessantly about the "oppressed." . He is anti-Orientalist as well, this in reference to Edward Said's critique of Western scholarship of the East and Africa, as if Said's views are some kind of holy grail that have never been criticized for pro-Islamist bias (even though he was a nominal Palestinian Christian), shoddy research, and inability to really appreciate the vast differences between Western democracies for all their flaws and the pervasive authoritarianism of Dar al-Islam generally. It may be true that some Orientalists of a bygone era were, indeed, in servitude to the British crown or France, etc., nonetheless they were actual scholars or creative artists and many were themselves opposed to colonialism or at least to colonial excesses. None of which resonates with Dussel as far as can be determined. . It was not possible to examine more than a sample of his corpus of writings and there simply isn't all that much written about him in the English language, but these remarks reflect what is available and are, as much as possible, based on a representative overview of Transmodernism . Emphasis in this philosophy is upon valorization of the poor as if true democracy necessarily must put the interests of the impoverished ahead of those of the middle class. Transmodernism also privileges the global South above the politically and economically dominant North. There is no ontological reason for this beyond the assertion that the poor are more virtuous intrinsically -although, since they are oppressed, by definition they also have virtues as victims of injustice. There does not seem to be acknowledgement of the fact -obvious to everyone- that the colonial era officially ended no later than about 1970 and that there have been several decades in which countries like Zimbabwe or Yemen could have lifted themselves out of poverty and become success stories like the also once colonized "Asian Tigers." Some former colonial nations did; most did not. . That is, there is no principle of selectivity; poverty = virtue, there is no room for debate on this issue. And, although a case can be made that many non-Western cultures deserve respect on the merits -for me this is unarguable for nations like Thailand, Sri Lanka, Singapore, and Ethiopia- for many other countries this view is questionable, especially concerning Muslim nations. But this is not how Dussel sees things. Hence his comments about 'neglected cultural values' can ring very hollow. However, at the same time he says much, indeed, that can warm the hearts of conservatives and not a few American liberals in his pronouncements about the importance of "family values," healthy communities, and, above all, use of modern technology to transform life from top to bottom, globally. . Most interesting from the perspective of Radical Centrism is Dussel's view of philosophy as central to any kind of meaningful liberation, hence any kind of worthwhile politics. Dussel's book, Philosophy of the Oppressed, has been cited to the effect that any kind of thorough-going transformation in the lives of the oppressed requires a mature philosophy. Or as he out it on page 189, “philosophy is the weapon of the liberation of the oppressed.” Further, an “alliance for critical philosophy” is essential in order to overcome "violent systems" that oppress people, or exclude them from power, or even end up taking over a population and turning a nation into a colony. . Where, though, is this happening? The examples that Dussel uses are, to say the least, unconvincing: Dussel's 1996 opus, The Underside of Modernity, lists Panama, Grenada, and Kuwait. This would suggest that Dussel sees little wrong in a corrupt drug lord ruler like Noriega, or a tiny country under control of Cuban-inspired Communists, or finds Kuwait some sort of cut-and-dried case of US colonization when, in fact, the sheikhdom was liberated from a tyrant with the gratitude of its people; moreover, the first Gulf War was fought by a true coalition including Arabs. It is unclear what kind of coherent sense Dussel thought he was making. . And it is strange that his typology excludes the Chinese invasion of northern parts of India in 1962, the invasion of Timor by Indonesia in 1975, or Argentina's military actions against the Falklands and New South Georgia in 1982. Indeed, if you want to go back into history, what about land grabs by one South American country after another in the 19th century? Bolivia lost its seaport and coastal province in that era, Uruguay was significantly reduced in size, and Ecuador ceased to have most of its Amazonian areas. Which is not to say that these territorial changes had no justification, I simply do not know, but in point of fact they happened and surely look like imperial ventures. . Also notable, while a somewhat different case, we can also cite Cuban military intervention in Angola which took place at various times between 1975 and 1991. None of this overlooks questionable actions by South Africa in its Apartheid years or by other nations allied with the West, but to note that Dussel's argument assumes a falsehood, namely, that the 'bad guys' are always Westen states or their satellites; this is a profound misreading of history. . But this said, it is difficult to argue his point that a people need a philosophy. Until the chaos of the late 1960s America had one, -it still has vestiges of one- Brazil still has one that is an outgrowth of Comtean Positivism, an Ataturk ideology was dominant in Turkiye until the rise of Islamism, France has one, so does Senegal, so does Israel, and so forth for many of the nations of the world. . A popular ideology has the effect of unifying people around common goals; it helps generate communal spirit. It provides ideals that reinforce a sense of morality and ideas that give people a sense of pride in themselves. And a popular ideology reinforces a nation's common heritage, hence gives added value to its culture and cultural institutions -everything from sports teams to spiritual organizations and their institutions like hospitals and schools. It is win / win for everyone. Or nearly everyone, exceptions being unassimilable groups like Muslims or Communists, or psychopathological sub-populations such as homosexuals. . Of course, what Dussel was referring to was more than an ideology as the word is usually understood. He meant a system of ideas, a special form of logic, and an interpretation of the real world that is based on values deemed crucial to a people. But in this case a philosophy can be taken as a surrogate for an ideology, it functions as an ideology. . “Philosophy is the weapon of the liberation of the oppressed,” said Dussel, because it uses analogy to deliberately view the powerful from the vantage of the powerless or, anyway, those subordinated to the powerful. It looks at what is dominant in the world from the standpoint of people who are subjected to the dominant classes -or to dominant organizations. As such Transmodernism rejects the views of dominant groups as reflected in their worldviews -assumptions, social values, and priorities. . The wrinkle in Dussel's system is that he regards all of the "periphery" as important, not just, as in his case, Latinos, which in other cases might be black people, eastern Asians, or shamanistic tribal groups. Hence, "Transmodernism places a strong emphasis on xenophily and globalism," xenophily being the opposite of xenophobia; it is a love for the different and "other." . However, every country has something special or unique to contribute to what are characterized as "necessary revolutions." It makes this contribution through criticism of oppression as it experiences it and by passing along lessons concerning how to resist it and make progress against it. A philosophy is also necessary for the oppressed because they are up against the philosophy of their oppressors, not just victims of military force or economic subjugation. The oppressed are victimized by a set of ideas that maintain conditions which make oppression sustainable. . What Dussel means is further outlined in his latter text, The Underside of Modernity. A radical philosophy cannot merely be a collection of grievances or of good intentions. It needs to explain the place of communications media in organized resistance, the logic of its strategy, and the functions of reason in the process of liberation -and creation of a new order afterward. Indeed, true liberation must mean replacement of one system of thought by another, a system of ideas that are productive in ways the defunct system of the oppressors never could be for anyone but the rulers. . That is, a new philosophy, some form of Transmodernism according to Dussel, should be developed -by any people seeking liberation- which will not only explain the rules of solid argument, what makes the best sense and what does not, but derive its appeal to the masses by serving to "exhort" the people to action. In this it needs to follow the example of Marx and later Marxists like Gramsci, but -so it can be inferred, leaders like Simon Bolivar. Whether or not Dussel allows for the leadership of men like Washington, Jefferson, and Hamilton, is not clear. . A new philosophy should also specifically promote a new ethics that "the people" can identify with that not only discredits any regime that is "oppressive, but also sets rules for conduct that citizens willingly follow so that thy can operate together to liberate their country and then organize a new regime that can actually work. . So, there is a lot of 'brain work' to be done, especially in clarifying objectives, standards of judgment, tests of truth, and what may be called the whys and wherefores of social psychology that tie everything together. Solidarity must be achieved in the process of developing a new philosophy, but so too must be efficient communications not only permit leaders to stay in contact with each other and co-ordinate their plans, but educate the population to critical thinking and everything else they need for success of their movement. . This is philosophy in service to the people, not in service to elites of any kind, not even to a "revolutionary vanguard;" the people must come first. This makes sense although Dussel's definition includes under the rubric "the people" not only the usual suspects like the workers and peasants, but women (as if all women have a common agenda), children (ages not specified but presumably over the age of 10), the elderly (apparently none of whom are conservative), groups that are discriminated against (racial and other minorities), and also "peripheral nations." . Exactly what this last category refers to is anyone's guess, however. Does Dussel foresee an alliance of Greenland, the Federation of Micronesia, Bhutan, Andorra, Djibouti, and maybe El Salvador? If so, he could not be taken seriously. So, presumably he means something else. Or perhaps this is simply quasi-Marxist rhetoric meant to inflame passions. . In any case, this is a revolt against the ideological systems created by populations that oppress the oppressed. Dussel is not clear about who these populations are but he did say that they may be "erotic" in nature, by which he suggests that homosexuals can be and sometimes are oppressors. This was the case of the homosexuals in leadership positions in the Third Reich, or maybe this refers to California "girlie men" in the modern era as a group that controls vast resources in the movie industry, but he does not say. Oddly, however, Dussel was a big fan of Richard Rorty, a "flaming faggot," so this is not at all clear. But what other erotic groups could he have possibly been referring to? Are there populations of hookers that oppress people? Are swingers an evil coterie that wields unseen political power? Porn stars? Teen girls when they have had too much to drink? . Conceivably he meant the publishers of sex magazines. If so, however, this is hardly a major threat to society even if, in some cases, the content of such periodicals is tasteless and crude. Personally I regard Hugh Hefner as superficial, not well educated, and an uncritical servant of Alfred Kinsey, a certified pervert, but it is difficult to think of Playboy magazine and its spin-offs as an "oppressive" factor in our culture. You can make many criticisms of Hefner and his business but (1) there also is an entirely benign side to his life's work in the form of popularization of female nudity as an art form, for example, and (2) no-one in their right mind would ever call him an "oppressor." So, I'm not at all sure what Dussel was talking about. . Pornography in general may well subvert traditional societies, of course, but none of it is organized to do so. The many criticisms by Judith Reisman on this issue are well taken; moreso than not pornography has a poisonous effect. It often is tasteless, lacks artistic merit, and promotes nihilistic values. However, sometimes this factor is murky. . Some traditional societies need to be undermined, such as the sexually repressive Muslim cultures of the Mid East. But other societies which might be considered to be candidates for political liberation are hardly puritanical in character. Some tribal societies treat women as inferiors who can be sexually exploited as desired (discussed in Robert Edgerton's 1992 Sick Societies) and others, like several in the South Pacific, are well known for sexual expressiveness that is inconceivable in mainstream culture in modern Western nations even if things are different in, say, Las Vegas or the red light district of Amsterdam. . The point is that Dussel's views on this subject, as on other topics, is simplistic and not well-informed. Therefore, we should not proceed as if his arguments are based on sufficient knowledge; they are not, or at a minimum sometimes are not, and no-one should think something else. This principle applies to his critique of two well-known schools of philosophy which he associates with oppressive states, "abstract universalistic rationalism" and "irrationalist pragmatism." Once again we need to ask, "what, exactly, is he talking about?" Is rationalism necessarily abstract, for instance? It is true enough that rationalism is universal in intent, but is it always abstract? Some thinkers who often are associated with rationalism, like Bertrand Russell, could be abstract in one book and highly contentious and colorful in the next. As for pragmatism, Dussel's characterization of this philosophy as "irrationalist" applies to no-one at all, and certainly not to Charles Saunders Peirce, its founder. . Transmodernism, in other words, has some obvious problems because Dussel is not all that careful a thinker and seems to be more interested in rhetorical effect than precision in his use of language. Thus his complaint about the "pretension to universality of particular reason." If something is true, that friction is as inescapable in sociology as it is in physics, for instance, why should the universality of this truth be condemned? If beliefs of various kinds are always opposed by contrary beliefs sure to arise in a social context as Hegel asserted, in what way is the universality of this principle wrong? Because someone comes up with a catchy phrase that sounds philosophical? . How seriously, for example can anyone take this statement from The Underside of Modernity: "The Philosophy of Liberation is a particular language and a meta-language (a “language game”) of the “languages of liberations”. O, really? Maybe a better way to describe what is going on here is to say that it is so much obscurantism. . What cannot be objected to in principle, however, is the view that philosophy needs to be more of "a way of living in relation to Others," -as the Introduction to Transmodernism, Modernism and Postmodernism says- rather than something better known as a type of thinking. This is Dussel's strength and the strength of Transmodernism. . Hence we get recognition of the importance of prophetism and poetry in Dussel's philosophy, which is a rare outlook in most mainstream philosophy even if there have been exceptions in the past like Vico, Saint-Simon, Comte, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche. A genuine philosopher is able to speak to the people because his most important "school" has been his experiences as an active member of the community at large, not just among a charmed circle of academics or fellow intellectuals. . When we look at the Transmodern interpretation of the arts, though, there are problems as well as promise for the future. . What we find is a grand vision of a synthesis of the arts, visual, spoken, danced, written, staged, acted, musical, and electronic. This sounds really good until you plumb the depths. What is positive in nature is the fact that this approach gives recognition to writers, painters, composers, and you-name-it, including folk artists, with the purpose of creating a new art form that expresses all of a community's cares and longings. But is this the best way for art be created? . What causes major problems, moreover, is that the source of this grand vision of a synthesis of arts was no less than a book written by Richard Wagner in the mid 19th century, The Artwork of the Future. Is the optimal artistic future supposed to consist of hundreds of new Beyreuths? If so, many artists would say: "Count me out." . What is the best way to create art? The answer is that there can be no one "best way." Some art is possible only as the product of an inspired individual; Also Speech Zarathustra could not have been written by a committee, and there is no such thing as an "improvement" on Beethoven's 9th symphony no matter how many skilled musicians you might recruit to revise it. On the other hand, Walt Disney's epic Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, which set all future standards for quality film animation, would have been impossible for any one man to assemble; it took a small army of artists with a variety of talents. . And does every artistic production require all the arts to be effective? You can turn a Camus novel into a movie with an all-star cast and a host of cinematographers and set designers, composers, costume designers, and everything else, but at the end of the day you may find that reading one of his books is a superior experience. . What does it do to folk arts when "new art" must include cinema, computer visual effects, innovative writing techniques and etc.? It may inspire some groups to creative achievement the way that Appalshop in East Kentucky transformed local culture and its arts into a film medium, but elsewhere it might destroy a local market for art by the men and women who live there. . But the most serious issue is Wagner, a rabid ant-Semite who was very much an influence on the Nazis in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s. This does not make Wagner's creations less stunning; he was a major influence on composers of many stripes, including Saint-Saens Debussy, Bruckner, Richard Strauss, and Leoš Janáček. But to cite Wagner without criticisms or a disclaimer is irresponsible. And isn't there someone else who might be a better exemplar of art for the future, like Gustav Mahler or Frank Lloyd Wright? . The conclusion is inescapable that Dussel -this may apply to his followers moreso than to him- is not terribly well-informed, or, maybe a better evaluation, is susceptible to arriving at views that have not been thought through with anything like thoroughness. . For example, according to Transmodernism, musicians should, in the future, abandon such devices as traditional music notation and replace it with tape recorded snippets of sound or with computer graphics. All of which is explained at one website this way: "Musicographical categories of musical events such as texture, hue, intensity, mass, volume, and density will come to dominate categories such as pitch, rhythm and harmony which are functionally dependent on instruments with static and limited coloration." Does any of this make the least sense? What actual musician talks like that? What music aficionado understands one word? . What purpose does such language actually have? How does texture or density come to 'dominate' pitch or harmony even though these factors are dependent on instruments that are 'limited in what they can do'? After all, a violin can only make violin sounds. Therefore a Stradivarius played by Hilary Hahn is inferior to a computer system programmed by a nerd who has never even heard of Vivaldi or Mendelssohn? . This all sounds like the work of a computer geek who has no idea at all what music actually is. In other words, yes, an electronic sound-effects system may be able to create many new kinds of tones and audio 'voices' but is there someone who thinks that the result is better than listening to a symphony orchestra? Or better than listening to a first rate Rock group or Jazz ensemble? . This takes us back to Dussel's call for an “alliance for critical philosophy” that is intended to bring about "liberation from violent systems of repression, exclusion and colonization." Huh? . What this is, is a mish-mash of ideas that have been joined together whether or not it all makes sense and reflects scholarship, professional research standards, or even basic tests of coherence. . Where are all of these violent systems of repression? The worst are hardly those generated by the West -although a case can be made that some West-led interventions are unjust. Rather, the worst are overwhelmingly not the doing of Capitalist democracies. The worst are Communist (think Pol Pot, the fat kid who now runs North Korea, Mao during the "Cultural Revolution"), Muslim (atrocities against Hindus in India, atrocities against Jews, atrocities against Christians, atrocities against Baha'is, atrocities against civilian populations all over the map), or local dictatorships as in Haiti, or local examples of anarchy run amok as in Zaire, or tribal inspired mass murder as in Rwanda. Not to count authoritarian regimes in former Communist states in central Asia or despots as in Bolivia. . When all is said, Transmodernism reflects nothing so much as a Latin American version of "cultural elitists disease," a mental virus that draws upon mostly Left-wing ideas in circulation, selects those that serve an idiosyncratic purpose, the vision of one man like Dussel, but organized in a new way for the sake of newness. Ultimately it promotes an unreal world. . This said, what is interesting from a Radical Centrist perspective is that Dussel recognized one important non-Leftist fact: Neo-Marxist bromides only go so far. And some have already gone too far. There is an entire non-Marxist world out there and it dwarfs the world inhabited by latter-day Leftists. The global South is anything but a realm where the proletariat is the critical factor in politics because a proletariat does not exist. But Pentecostals exist and exist in multitudes. And the shrill anti-religion diatribes of modern Marxist Atheists fall flat, indeed, among the three or four billion people of the region whose identity is wedded to spiritual traditions that may go back thousands of years. Dussel, for all his shortcomings, recognizes that the Left is in need of a reformation. . His solution, accordingly, has characteristics of Radical Centrism. It combines -at least as he sees it- the best of Left and Right, adds some original ideas, offers a critique of existing political systems, and attempts a new synthesis of philosophy with social thought. . Beyond that, Dussel saw the connection between philosophy and the arts. Philosophy makes use of art, is inspired by art, and art caries philosophical concepts far and wide. If only Transmodernism was based on an understanding of actual art this dimension of Dussel's system might offer something of actual value to people -which is pretty much does not. The exception is that Dussel was ahead of his time in foreseeing the rising importance of such phenomena as computer generated art. Indeed, as time progressed Transmodernism became identified with Virtual Reality as a genre and with various Virtual Reality creations. This seems to be a first, a philosophy as such that values electronic art in general and Virtual Reality in particular. Radical Centrists might do well to shamelessly borrow the idea. . What Radical Centrists should flee from is identification with the poor as necessarily virtuous. That concept is demonstrably false. It is unclear exactly how to go about quantifying the effect, but it is certain enough that there are approximately as many unvirtuous poor per capita as there are unvirtuous middle class citizens; probably we can say the same about the wealthy. In so many words, economic well being or lack thereof guarantees nothing at all about someone's character. A host of factors make that determination, from the example of parents to the kind of schooling one receives, from the values of one's religion to the corruption or incorruptibility of people in government. And, of course, we all have at least a semblance of free will. . Mother Teresa was poor and extremely virtuous. The immoral and violent pirates of Somalia are poor and utterly evil. . Of course it is no problem to identify the source of the false equation: Poverty = Virtue. The idea is Biblical. . There are approximately 100 verses in the Judeo-Christian scriptures that discuss "the poor" -usually directly but sometimes by inference. In almost all cases where a value judgement is made the poor are righteous by definition Yet there is a reason for this, mostly, in this context, the Bible talks about injustice meted out to the poor by the rich and powerful. Taken as a whole the poor may be foolish, may be dishonest, and may be sinners in still other ways. But they are always powerless and often are mistreated. Hence they serve as a good object lesson in morality. . Which is to say that the Bible usually presents us a picture of the "virtuous poor." It is this generalization that entered Left-wing discourse in the 19th century, a time when Socialism could be taken as a secular version of Christian faith. Or, as in the case of Karl Marx, as a secular version of Jewish or Christian faith. Poverty = virtue was part of common Western culture and who could argue with what was then a truism? Besides, various passages of scripture were memorable to this effect and were very well known. A few examples: . from Proverbs 19: "Better to be poor and above reproach than rich and crooked in speech," and "He who is generous to the poor lends to the Lord; he will repay him in full measure." . from Amos 5: They hate him who reproves in the gate, and they abhor him who speaks the truth. Therefore because you trample upon the poor and take from him exactions of wheat, you have built houses of hewn stone, but you shall not dwell in them; you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine. For I know how many are your transgressions, and how great are your sins - you who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe, and turn aside the needy in the gate" and "let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." . from Matthew 6, part of the Sermon on the Mount: "No servant can be the slave to two masters; for either he will hate the first and love the second, or he will be devoted to the first and think nothing of the second. You cannot serve God and Money." . from Luke 21: "He [Jesus] looked up and saw the rich people dropping their gifts into the chest of the temple treasury; and he noticed a poor widow putting in two tiny coins. 'I tell you this,' he said: 'this poor widow has given more than any of them; for those others who have given had more than enough, but she, with less than enough, has given all she had to live on." . You would really need to be hard-hearted not to get the point. This includes the testimony of he Book of Job. People who are not familiar with the Bible often make the equation, wealth = righteousness. That is, if you do good the Lord will reward you with riches. This is also the basis of the so-called "Prosperity Gospel." Even though many preachers of this doctrine should know better, they have suppressed all the verses that tell us NOT to judge character by worldly success or absence of success. Salvation is a matter of character and morality, and in the case of Christians it is also a question of accepting Jesus as Lord. The idea is to do good with no expectation of reward. There might be one, of course, but that is entirely up to God and sometimes the Almighty has other plans for you, like self sacrifice and suffering for a noble cause. . In the case of Job, he was a wealthy man who lost everything through no fault of his own. He was dragged down to the depths of despair, he lived a life of abysmal poverty, he had almost nothing and he was afflicted with illness. For this he was taunted by his fellows that surely God was punishing him for some grievous sin. But that was not the case at all; Satan was ultimately responsible. Eventually God lifted the curse Job had been under. But in the meantime Job had become a nobody, he was destitute, and endured one injustice after another. He was one of the virtuous poor. . It is this model that captured the imagination of the Left and which still possesses its imagination. Therefore the Left feels that it is righteous because the Right does not share this ethos. Therefore, it is always good to be the champion of the poor. . Even when they do not deserve such valorization in any way. . It would be possible to discuss this matter at great length but it should be enough to say that -at least one very defensible way to think of the matter- there is always a context to verses about the poor in the Bible and we ignore that context at our peril. Personally, for me, the crux of the issue was resolved in a 1991 book by John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. Yes, Jesus talked about the poor. And yes, his comments could be generalized to multitudes of poor people. But the model he assumed was that of his fellow impoverished Galilean Jews suffering under Roman rule, abetted by tax farmers from Jerusalem who, while also Jewish, were far more interested in their income and profits than in the fate of their poor co-religionist "peasants" living in the countryside. . There were plenty of poor people in the city of Rome, for instance, but they were wilfully obedient to Roman authority and, as well, had no compunction to attending gladiatorial contexts in which men killed each other for sport. The poor of Rome might also worship deities whom Jesus abhorred, like Cybele. They might indulge in every evil imaginable in the bargain. It would be a stretch of unbelievable proportions to think that the poor that Christ was talking about as quoted in the Gospels included those poor, or similar poor people elsewhere in the world who were unrighteous by disposition and gave little or no thought to moral goodness.. . Radical Centrism as I understand it, makes this exact same distinction: We should always judge by cases. Sometimes the poor do deserve what they get. Hence I have zero sympathy for the poor of Gaza who elected Hamas, nor for the poor of any other state who were accessories to the rise of a morally sick regime. Why should I think otherwise? Why should anyone? . The counterpart of this is also obvious. Some populations of the poor have been maligned, mistreated, abused, et.al, for many years and have been unable to gain justice. For what it is worth, I stand with them against the powers and principalities of this world. But this is to speak of the poor of Appalachia, of rural Mexico, of the Philippines, of still other places. This excludes the self-deluded poor, the poor who acquiesce in the continuation of criminal regimes, and the poor who support the most evil religion in the history of the human race, Islam. . Leftists, and Dussel's Transmodernist followers, make no such distinctions. . What this does NOT mean, which is what the political Right assumes it must mean, is that the only conceivable choice is Christianity. But why should that be the only alternative? . A strong case can be made that almost any other religion than Islam would be a good choice. To speak only of still living spiritual traditions, for Iranians an excellent choice would be Zoroastrianism in one of' its forms, like Mazda Yasna, or the Baha'i Faith. For Turks there is the rich heritage of the eastern Orthodoxy of the Byzantine Empire. For Pakistanis, Indonesians, Bangladeshis, or Afghans it would mean Hinduism or Buddhism. For many Palestinians it would mean Judaism, especially since about 2/3rds of that population shares the same chromosomes with Israelis. And if this presents problems for the ultra-Orthodox, so what? Like a good number of Israeli Jews, I have almost no respect for the Haredim; they are throwbacks to the dark ages. They are narrow-minded bigots. . The approach being advocated here is one of absolute candor. And -as much as possible- genuine objectivity. I am attracted to Christian faith for many reasons but this hardly says that this is the. one-and-only path to salvation. As it is, I consider myself to not only be a Christian but also a devotee of the Goddess Ishtar as equivalent to the Holy Spirit, and am partly Buddhist, partly Zoroastrian, and so forth, including affinity for a number of Hindu Goddesses and Chinese sages. This is to speak of a "family of faiths" who, while they may disagree about matters of theology, are in basic harmony on the issue of morality and appreciation for the good things in life. Work out your own salvation; there are many good choices. But quit Islam, reject it totally, disavow it, and change your life. Become a human being. . About which, while there are differences in perspective, Radical Centrism and Transmodernism have much in common. And like Transmodernism, the Radical Centrist view is that the secularization of society has gone too far, much too far. It really is time for a rollback of Atheism in the world. . To be sure, I have Atheist friends. But they are not militant anti-religion Atheists, they are Humanists. As for the militants who attack religious faith at every opportunity, they also are narrow minded bigots. Religion, when it is "done right," adds beauty to our lives, gives meaning to our lives, inspires us to great things, and makes us better people. No one religion should be privileged in the public square but the anti-religion attacks on religion led by the ACLU must be brought to an end; there is no justification for treating Atheism as a privileged 'religion' at the expense of every living faith. . . One Transmodern axiom has it that its "Philosophy of Liberation... affirms decisively and unequivocally the communicative, strategic, and liberating importance of "reason." It would be nice if it did. But it does not each and every time it makes a fetish out of oppression as if the outlook of the Left about such matters does not need to be analyzed critically. That viewpoint also says that we don't need to be honest about such things and all we do need is to believe in the credo of today's Marxist intelligentsia. . To hell with that. . And to hell with Political Correctness in all its forms, and to hell with what passes for "multi-culturalism" in the university. Not all cultures are created equal and we should be forthright about the strengths and shortcomings of different civilizations. Will this cause consternation among people of some cultures? Probably. But this can only include Europeans and Americans because we, too, have failings and imperfections. Its just that most other cultures have more to learn from us than the other way around. What do you suppose the history of the past 300 years has taught us? What we should absolutely not do is to throw away all the good of the West for the sake of being sensitive to cultures that have serious failings that we should never accept as good or true. . Canadian historian William H. McNeill had it right in his 1963 book published by the University of Chicago Press, The Rise of the West. Europe and America, soon followed by Canada, Australia, and Japan, assumed leadership positions in the world and provided humanity with every conceivable advantage of science and Enlightenment thinking. . The nations that have learned this lesson are now lifting themselves up by their bootstraps to join the West -speaking of China, India, and Brazil especially, but other nations as well. This is the reality and we need to say so, loud and clear. But let us be honest; South Africa, for instance, could become part of the picture but that will remain impossible as long as it elects scientific illiterates to the nation's highest offices. There is no kind way to say that election of superstitious blowhards brings anything but retrogression to a country. It is time for many nations to grow up. . At least in principle, Transmodernism is on he same page as Radical Centrism on this issue. Dussel is very clear that the intellectual war against the Enlightenment is ill-advised and foolish. Its just that his formulation of the problem is specious. Sometimes there is over-reliance on the philosophies of the 18th century. Hence the feminist Left adheres to the long discredited idea that we are infinitely elastic beings who can do, or become, anything we want. Which is a legacy of someone whom I also admire, Condorcet, but on this question he could not have been more wrong. We have limits dictated by the biology of our species. We need to know -totally objectively- what those limits are, not pretend there aren't any because if that was admitted it would pull the rug out from under feminist false ideology. . This does not mean that women's place is a matter of Kinder, Küche, Kirche, but it does say that women are different than men (gosh, who knew?) and that it is a disservice to everyone to act as if this was not true. Women -with damned few special exceptions- have absolutely no place in military combat, for instance, and men need to be deferential to women with children. Any ideology that conflicts with biology is a dysfunctional ideology. . But this also says that, for example, Muslim attitudes toward women are completely unacceptable. We should not tolerate a whole cultural complex that produces, as the late Anwar Sadat once put it, "women wearing tents." . This might upset the sensitivities of Saudi religious authorities? Gee, that's too bad. As a solution to the problem here is a suggestion: Why don't we simply tell the Wahhabi establishment to go f**k itself ? . Many more people need to be discredited than most American politicians and the current membership of the Supreme Court. . Dussel is quite right: We need to criticize and condemn philosophies of pessimism, relativism, and nihilism. We need to condemn all those social forces that are undermining the family. We need to condemn economic rapine and environmental denialism which is characteristic of the libertarian Right. And even more. However, Dussel's overall philosophy is so ill-conceived that is cannot serve our most pressing needs; it is a philosophy riddled with errors of judgement. . . We most need a Radical Centrist philosophy that challenges the status quo in every dimension -everywhere. We need a war of ideas to bring humanity kicking and screaming into the 21st century. This is not a project of the Left, and the Right is incapable of understanding much of anything. This is all about a new kind of politics, one that is uncompromisingly radical -and at the same time centrist in its values and goals. . These are the battle lines. . "Finally then, find your strength in the Lord, in his mighty power. Put on all the armor which God provides, so that you may be able to stand firm against the devices of the devil. For our fight is not against human foes, but against cosmic powers, against the authorities and potentates of this dark world, against the superhuman forces of evil in the heavens. Therefore, take up God's armor; then you will be able to stand your ground when things are at their worst, to complete every task and still to stand. Stand firm, I say. Buckle on the belt of truth; for coat of mail put on integrity; let the shoes on your feet be the gospel of peace, to give you firm footing; and, with all these, take up the great shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take salvation for helmet; for sword, take that which the Spirit gives you, the words that come from God." . The words are from the last chapter of the Book of Ephesians in the New Testament; they are attributed to the Apostle Paul. And they are good enough for me. . We need to launch a new crusade. A crusade against everything that is false, evil, nihilistic, superstitious, puritanic, corrupt, and wrong. Who's side are you on? . . . Eugene, Oregon January 9, 2016 -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
