Thoughts on Truth and Repolarization

[repeater]

Red State, Blue State: Cracking the Christian Fascist Code
Thoughts on Truth and Repolarization

by Sunsara Taylor

Revolutionary Worker #1272, March 27, 2005, posted at rwor.org

After last November's election all the pundits were non-stop talking about the Red State/Blue State divide. E-mails bounced around featuring re-drawn maps appending the east and west coasts into the "United States of Canada" and re-labeling the mass in the middle as "Jesus-Land."

While the country is never so simply or geographically divided, there is something profound and important in some recent remarks made by Newt Gingrich when he compared the gulf in this country to that which preceded the U.S. Civil War, saying "This isn't a divided government--it's a divided country." (Continetti)

This essay is in response to the chilling echoes from history I hear in the voices that call for "healing" the divide or "seeking common ground"; to the excruciating slowness with which people in Germany in the 1930s, to Rwanda in the 1990s--and the United States of today-- recognized the significance of a growing gulf in worldviews so fundamental that no resolution may be possible without the obliteration of one by the other.

Far from writing off or dismissing the millions and millions of "values voters" who've been pulled into standing on a horrendous side of history, I seek to deepen and broaden the conversation over how to analyze and transform the scary situation where this country is being dragged towards full blown Christian fascism.

******

I am disturbed by what strikes me as a profound underestimation of the role of ideology in the movements of opposition to the current Bushite climate. Too many view the "culture wars" as a way that Karl Rove duped a lot of Christians into voting against their economic interests.

In my efforts to understand more deeply the role of morality, values and cultures in the stability--or unravelling--of human society, I went back to a collection of essays called Conformity and Conflict: Readings in Cultural Anthropology. Rereading this I was even more struck by this statement by anthropologist David W. McCurdy: "Every social system is a moral order; shared values act as the mortar binding together the structure of each human community...But the moral nature of every culture has two sides: it facilitates adaptation and survival on the one hand, but it often generates conflict and destruction on the other." (Spradley, 8-9)

When two fundamentally opposed visions of morality, reality, and how the world should be develop within one society, this is not something that can be easily resolved. Even rulers who try to "use" or manipulate sections of the population to achieve their aims often cannot control the very forces that they have conjured up.

Today, there are increasingly two "universes" in this country--among the people, and also within the ranks of those in power--two worlds that do not share common assumptions, common aims, or even a common language.

There is a growing core of millions in this country who interpret reality through the prism of End Times prophecy. In this universe, concern is not placed on solving epidemics like AIDS, saving the environment, ending oppression or wars, or solving other problems of the world that surrounds us. None of this matters so much because the end is near anyhow. Instead, emphasis is placed on preparing oneself and others for the coming Day of Judgment.

Facts and science become suspect, perhaps even the work of the devil, because they contradict God's truth as revealed in the Bible.

One of the peculiar twists of the current End Time theology is that God is seen to be actively working through George Bush's presidency. Things like the invasion of Iraq, the theft of Palestinian land by Israel, the decadence and "moral decay" within U.S. society, even the disastrous recent tsunami, are all proof that the second coming of Christ and His Judgment are near.

Even words as central to international and domestic policy as "freedom" do not mean the same thing to people on either side of this stark divide over what truth is and how do we know the world.

On a recent panel Janet Jakobsen, of Barnard University, wrestled with the seeming hypocrisy between Bush's proclamations that "freedom is on the march" through international wars (that supposedly include the "liberation of women") and his fundamentalist biblical views on gays and women at home. In a fascinating discussion, which I can't do justice to here, she explored how Protestant Reformation--the historical forerunner of today's evangelical religions--forged a definition of "freedom" based on the restriction of sexuality and family structures. At one point she commented that, "when Bush uses the word 'freedom' it is definitely straight ."

Many other elements of this fundamentalist End Times outlook are brought out in the Left Behind fiction series. As I have plowed through this mind-numbing writing, I have been repeatedly shocked by how openly these books dovetail with the political program of U.S. military and economic supremacy and Dark Ages philosophy currently running rampant from the halls of Congress to local pulpits.

The books begin when God "raptures" all the true believers and "innocent fetuses" up to heaven. Airplanes that have lost pilots plummet to the ground, cars crash in huge pile- ups, chaos ensues and this is just the beginning of seven years of Tribulation to come for those who are "Left Behind."

The first Muslim to make an appearance is a "terrorist" who attempts to kill a saint and is then burned to death. The courting rituals romanticize submissive women and domineering men whose stalking is glorified by God. Rational thought, college, science and evolution are repeatedly denounced. And the U.S. militia movement is lavishly praised for being a righteous force that fights the Antichrist.

In case you are now thinking that these are novels for a small fringe group, it might interest you to know that 62 million copies have been sold worldwide !

While reading one of these books on the subway I met a well-dressed young Black man who was reading the twelfth book in the series. We talked for a while before I became aware that we were having almost entirely different conversations.

I told him the books scared me--meaning that it is frightening that so many people believe these destructive, vengeful fantasies. He agreed whole-heartedly--meaning that it is frightening to think about the horrors that are promised to the non-believers who are "left behind" when the Rapture comes.

I pointed out the way the Bible was being used to promote a reactionary political program embedded in the stories. He saw the use of the Bible as proof that these books transcended politics and were simply based on the word of god.

What really surprised me, though, is when I asked him if he was very religious. He said he wasn't until his brother gave him the first book in the series just six weeks before.

These books play upon many people's assumptions that the Bible and Christianity are overall good to instill a very specific interpretation of what that faith should mean. Consider this excerpt from the Left Behind series where a true believing preacher (Bruce) is warning people about the rise of the Antichrist. Then the preacher explains to his church how they can be confident that he himself is not the Antichrist:

"Let me close by telling you how you can be sure I am not the Antichrist...I'm not implying that you suspect me...But we may get to the point where every leader is suspect. Remember, however, that you will never hear peace promised from this pulpit...I predict the opposite of peace. The other three horsemen are coming and they bring war, famine, plagues, and death...Our only hope is in Christ, and even in him we will likely suffer." (LaHaye, 72-73)

Got it? Don't trust a preacher unless he is preaching about bloodshed. Especially don't trust someone talking about peace or a global community. Those are phrases identified with the Antichrist.
"LOFTY" DIVISIONS WITH DANGEROUS CONSEQUENCES

In addition to defining the world through the prism of End Times prophecy, these books divide the world into "true Christians" (who evangelize and fight with God on their side) and infidels (gays, rebellious youth, independent women, secularists, Jews or Muslims, and especially false Christians-- i.e., anyone who does not cotton to their fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible).

Then, there are two different codes for how these two different groups of people should be treated. In a recent television series which emphasized that man cannot submit to God without knowing the "terror of God," Kirk Cameron, actor turned fundamentalist evangelical proselytizer, instructed viewers on how to treat these two groups. "If a person...can see that...they've sinned against God, then do what Jesus did. Give them the Good News of the gospel. But if they have a proud and self- righteous heart, do what Jesus did. Give them the moral law, the 10 Commandments. Let them see how they've sinned against God." (For an understanding of the terror that is implied in ''giving people the ten commandments," see Bob Avakian's essay "Dictators, Tyrants and Butchers...What About Moses ?! at rwor.org)

[repeater]

In The Nazi Conscience , Claudia Koonz discusses how a similar type of dividing up of the population, the "separating those who deserve our concern from alien 'others' beyond the pale of the community" (Koonz, 1), was central to how the Nazis compelled millions of Germans to go along with their extreme horrors. Then she notes that "although it might seem that a human catastrophe on the scale of the Holocaust was caused by an evil that defies our understanding, what is frightening about the racist public culture within which the Final Solution was conceived is not its extremism but its ordinariness--not its savage hatreds but its lofty ideals." (Koonz, 2)
REPOLARIZATION VS. ACCOMMODATION

For a glimpse of how far the architects of today's Christian fascist movement have clawed, blackmailed and maneuvered their way into the highest echelons of military, government, media and finance, I recommend Ester Kaplan's book, With God on Their Side . ( See RW #1269, February 27, 2005.)

It is the combination of both their positions of power and the fact that they have built up a large social base that makes the rise of full-blown Christian fascism in this country such an urgent and tangible danger. And the leaders and their millions of non-thinking followers are openly saying and have repeatedly demonstrated that they are not seeking to compromise; they will not stop until they have achieved their vision for the entire world or until they are defeated.

Those who seek "common ground," whatever their intentions, only can hope to be pulled along at the left edge of a spectrum that keeps hurtling to the right. Rather than attempting to "de- polarize" the country we must re-polarize, reversing the dynamic so that the majority of people in this country, including millions of religious people who believe in God, are won to stand against the imposition of a Christian fascist theocracy.

No less than if we were transported back to Germany in the 1930s, we must urgently, creatively, and fearlessly hit at the foundations of this absolutist world outlook. We must do so until it begins to crack for people and we can peel them away. And we must continue, repeatedly, gathering strength as growing numbers come to understand what is at stake. This is an intense battle we can't afford to lose.

This can be done because the absolutist outlook fostered by the Christian fascists is brittle, unscientific, backward-looking, small-minded and oppressive--and is constantly being contradicted by reality. And because, as the Revolutionary Communist Party wrote after the election, even many of the people who are caught up in this outlook "have sons and daughters killing and dying in Iraq; many of them are victims of the 'lean and mean' capitalism represented by Bush (and Kerry for that matter); many, especially women, are still trapped in social relations that scar their spirit and their lives; and whatever solace they find in this Christian fascism cannot ultimately transcend all that."
WE NEED A LIBERATING MORALITY

This reactionary outlook is preying upon people's need for meaning and morality in a constantly changing and increasingly insecure world. We too can meet this need--in much more profound and liberating ways. But we must recognize that morality cannot be forged piecemeal, just through a collection of different issues.

While the Christian fascists offer meaning through oppressive Biblical myths, we must grasp what Bob Avakian is getting at when he recently said, "What we think is right and good and principled depends on how we view that, how we view what kind of society it is that is both possible but also desirable." (Avakian and Martin, forthcoming)

And speaking to the multi-dimensional way that communists view this, Avakian wrote in "The Truth About Right-Wing Conspiracy...And Why Clinton and the Democrats Are No Answer":

"As for our Party, our goal is the radical transformation of society, and of the world, to eliminate all oppressive and exploitative relations among people and to abolish all class distinctions and national antagonisms and barriers, to bring about, as the final goal, a freely associating community of human beings, worldwide. The morals and ideology we uphold and strive to apply are in accordance with that objective and are, at any given point, an expression of the link between the current struggle and the final goal. In this way, our outlook and principles, as well as our political program and actions, are in the most fundamental opposition to the Christian fascists and at the same time to all forms and expressions of bourgeois rule and bourgeois ideology. But we also recognize, consistent with our outlook and principles, that there is a need, and a basis, for building a broad unity in struggle against what has been referred to as the politics of poverty, punishment, and patriarchy and in general against the ways in which the masses of people, in the U.S. and throughout the world, are subjected to exploitation, oppression and plunder.

"And we believe that, together with building this political unity in struggle, there is also a need and a basis to forge broad unity, among diverse forces around values and cultural expressions that promote and celebrate equality, between men and women, and between peoples and nations; that stand against oppression and against violence which furthers and enforces such oppression; that oppose imperial domination by one nation over others and military bludgeoning to impose that domination; that fosters relations among people based on an appreciation for diversity but also for community; values and culture that prize cooperation among people in place of cut-throat competition, that put the needs of people above the drive to accumulate wealth, that actually promote the global interests of humanity as opposed to narrow national antagonisms and great-power domination."

In this way, we are capable of forging a morality flowing from principles which guide an ongoing struggle to uproot all vestiges of male supremacy, to promote and base ourselves on science and truth, to value people around the world, to overcome the brutal history and present reality of racism, and to construct a whole better world in the process.

Let me end with a somewhat lengthy, but deep and deserving, quote from Bill Moyers. He has been calling on people to recognize the repercussions of allowing the direction of the environmental policies to be set by forces who reject science and are in the grip of apocalyptic fantasies. I believe the stakes he lays out apply even more broadly.

"I...look up at the pictures on my desk, next to the computer--pictures of my grandchildren: Henry, age twelve; Thomas, ten; Nancy, eight; Jassie, three; SaraJane, one. I see the future looking back at me from those photographs and I say, 'Father, forgive us, for we know not what we do.' And then the shiver runs down my spine and I am seized by the realization: 'That's not right. We do know what we are doing. We are stealing their future. Betraying their trust. Despoiling their world.'

"And I ask myself: Why? Is it because we don't care? Because we are greedy? Because we have lost our capacity for outrage, our ability to sustain indignation at injustice?

"What has happened to our moral imagination?

"On the heath Lear asks Gloucester: 'How do you see the world?' And Gloucester, who is blind, answers: 'I see it feelingly.'

"I see it feelingly.

"Why don't we feel the world enough to save it--for our kin to come?

"The news is not good these days. But as a journalist I know the news is never the end of the story. The news can be the truth that sets us free not only to feel but to fight for the future we want. The will to fight is the antidote to despair, the cure for cynicism, and the answer to those faces looking back at me from those photographs on my desk. We must match the science of human health to what the ancient Israelites called hochma--the science of the heart, the capacity to see and feel and then to act as if the future depended on us.

"Believe me, it does."

Works Cited

Avakian, Bob and Bill Martin. Marxism and the Call of the Future: Conversations on Ethics, History, and Politics . Chicago: Open Court, 2005.

Avakian, "The Truth About Right-Wing Conspiracy.And Why Clinton and the Democrats Are No Answer," first published November 22, 1998, Revolutionary Worker, online at rwor.org.

Cameron, Kirk. The Way Of The Master . TBN. 372, New York. 17 March 2005.

Continetti, Matthew. "An Uncivil War," Weekly Standard , November 11, 2004

LaHaye, Tim and Jerry B. Jenkins. Tribulation Force: The Continuing Drama of Those Left Behind (Left Behind No. 2). Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1997.

Jakobsen, Janet. Lecture. "Values Talk: God, Gays, and Democracy in America Today." Center for Religion and Media of New York University. NYU's King Juan Carlos I of Spain Auditorium, New York. 9 Feb. 2005.

Koonz, Claudia. The Nazi Conscience . Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003.

Moyers, Bill. "Welcome to Doomsday." The New York Review of Books , Volume 52, Number 5, 24 March 2005.

Spradley, James and David W. McCurdy. Conformity and Conflict: Readings in Cultural Anthropology . Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon, 2000.

Revolutionary Communist Party, USA. "The Will of the People was NOT Expressed in this Election." November 2004.

This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolutionary Worker Online
rwor.org
Write: Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

[redstar2000GUEST]

Sunsara Taylor wrote: Those who seek "common ground," whatever their intentions, only can hope to be pulled along at the left edge of a spectrum that keeps hurtling to the right. Rather than attempting to "de- polarize" the country we must re-polarize, reversing the dynamic so that the majority of people in this country, including millions of religious people who believe in God, are won to stand against the imposition of a Christian fascist theocracy. -- emphasis added.

It seems to be that trying to organize "Christians Against Christian Fascism" is rather on the same order as trying to organize "Anti-Semites Against Nazism".

I can't say outright that it will "never" happen...but the obstacles are pretty obvious.

Religion and fascism go together like...well, con and man. The Catholic clergy in the Third Reich were warmly supportive of Nazism and the Protestant clergy even more so.

I really don't see any alternative short of a sustained campaign to drive religion out of public life.

And that would mean confronting the Christian fascists in the same way we'd confront Nazis or Klansmen...or prominent supporters of the war in Iraq.

Sunsara Taylor wrote: WE NEED A LIBERATING MORALITY

This reactionary outlook is preying upon people's need for meaning and morality in a constantly changing and increasingly insecure world. We too can meet this need--in much more profound and liberating ways. But we must recognize that morality cannot be forged piecemeal, just through a collection of different issues.

While the Christian fascists offer meaning through oppressive Biblical myths, we must grasp what Bob Avakian is getting at when he recently said, "What we think is right and good and principled depends on how we view that, how we view what kind of society it is that is both possible but also desirable."

I question the utility of adopting the enemy's terminology -- "meaning and morality" -- in this struggle.

Our ideas certainly are far more "meaningful and moral" than those of our enemies...but if we start using words like that, we risk generating an enormous amount of confusion.

It reminds me of the old American Communist Party saying that "communism is 20th century Americanism" and claiming to be "the real patriots" during and after World War II.

Such "tricks" rarely fool very many people for very long. Worse, I think they demoralize the people who really want something different.

Perhaps we should borrow a phrase from Marx himself in this fight. He once remarked, almost in passing, that humanity would choose between socialism and barbarism.

The Christian fascists are ideological barbarians -- and I think we should frame them in those terms. No "legitimacy" should be conceded to their priorities...not even verbally.

[RedGuestOverTrenton]

Religion and fascism go together like...well, con and man. The Catholic clergy in the Third Reich were warmly supportive of Nazism and the Protestant clergy even more so.

I don't think its fair to lump the entire religious community into the fascist camp like that - I don't know if that's your intention, but it certainly sounds like it.

There are progressive Christians in the United States; people who belong to liberal denominations like the Episcopalians, the United Church of Christ, and Christians in the Unitarian Church for example, who have no desire to impose the Christian Fascist agenda on the people and do not uphold biblical literalism. Many even take a firm stand against it. There are even Catholics who have taken a firm stand against imperialism and war. For example, the School of the Americas is a training camp for Latin American death squads and mercenaries, and every year for the past several years there have been annual demonstrations to close it down that continue to exponentially increase in size. These were started by a tiny handful of Catholic clergy.

Why in the world wouldn't we reach out to these people? Obviously we should fight for and uphold a materialist outlook and politics, but I think we can do that without insulting, alienating, or driving progressive Christians away from this important struggle - a struggle that requires the mobilization of millions and millions of people, including people who believe in some sort of God or another. I can't see what good that refusing to unite with progressive religious people could do, other than further driving away and alienating them from our politics.

[redstar2000GUEST]

RedGuestOverTrenton wrote: I don't think its fair to lump the entire religious community into the fascist camp like that - I don't know if that's your intention, but it certainly sounds like it.

Revolutionary politics is not about "fairness"...it's about telling the truth to people in plain language.

Even when that truth is "upsetting" and "alienating".

The major religions that exist today arose either during barbarism (nomadism) or hydraulic despotism/slavery (mistakenly called by Marx "Oriental despotism" due to the Euro-centric prejudices of his era). The ideas contained within modern religions are actually reflections of the class relationships that existed 20 or more centuries ago.

Thus, it's not just a matter of religion being wrong because it's idealist instead of materialist. Religion is reactionary to the core because it all originated long before capitalism and even feudalism.

Of course, it has been adapted over the century. The high priest-king was replaced by the emperor who was then replaced by the feudal lord and then by the successful capitalist/military despot. But the message has remained constant: obedience to authority is the "Will of God".

Now, you can argue that many modern Christians don't take this message "seriously" any longer...they "don't let" their religious views have "any effect" on their other views.

And there might even be some truth to that.

But as long as one sincerely believes that there is "a divine order" which "must be obeyed"...then the seeds of despotism are there and can spread at any time.

Religious people are all potential fascists...and more than a few have gone "whole hog" in that direction.

This even applies to "progressive" Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. Though they go to great efforts to repudiate the more obviously barbaric tenets and practices of their faith, that "core idea" -- obedience to authority -- is still there.

For example, that "small group of Catholic clergy" who began the demonstrations against the army's torture school in Georgia still think that women who have abortions should go to prison and the doctors who perform those abortions are guilty of "genocide". Why? The pope said so!

Obedience to authority.

RedGuestOverTrenton wrote: I can't see what good that refusing to unite with progressive religious people could do, other than further driving away and alienating them from our politics.

Why not make the same argument with regard to "uniting with Democrats"? Or "uniting with progressive capitalists"? Or "progressive" racists?

If you "unite" with reactionaries in more than a superficial way, then you simply strengthen reaction, regardless of your intentions. You send the message that people should "choose" between a "progressive variant" of reaction and a genuinely revolutionary alternative...and that those are equally "legitimate" choices.

It's true that in the twists and turns of political life, we will sometimes find ourselves "on the same side" of a particular issue as some reactionaries. That's unavoidable. But even then, I would try to formulate a line that would make it clear that we were not "unified" with those reactionaries...that their presence was a historical accident while our presence was a matter of revolutionary principle.

If a bourgeois liberal opposes Christian fascism, fine. But bourgeois liberalism is still reactionary...and it is wrong to say anything that would imply the contrary.

The same would be even more true about "Christians against Christian fascism".

The Christian who opposes Christian fascism is acting from expediency...he thinks that this is not the right time.

But watch and see. If we do fall into the pit of Christian fascism, that "progressive" bastard will be singing in the choir and burning people for witchcraft right along with the rest of them.

Obedience to authority.



The Redstar2000 Papers

Revolutionary Left Forums

[MundoQueGanar]

Guest-redstar2000GUEST said:

But watch and see. If we do fall into the pit of Christian fascism, that "progressive" bastard will be singing in the choir and burning people for witchcraft right along with the rest of them.

Now that's just silly, and completely ahistorical.

Have you ever heard of a minister from the Nazi period in Germany named Dietrich Bonhoeffer? He held onto his religious beliefs even as every church around him caved to or even actively supported the Nazis. Now as a communist I think he would have been a lot more effective had he shed all those beliefs, but to say that holding onto religious beliefs guarantees that you'll side with the fascists is utterly ridiculous. Bonhoeffer was captured and executed for attempting to assassinate Hitler with a bomb. The only reason the plot failed is that the table at which Hitler was seated was thick enough to shield him from the blast when the bomb exploded underneath.

If we don't welcome those kinds of efforts from every Bonhoeffer who appears during this period we are fools. That does not mean that we don't put forward our atheist position and try to win everyone we can to it. Nor does it mean that we uphold ideologies other than communism, like Christianity, or try to mush them together with what we're about. But it does mean that we don't approach people with the view that "If you're not already down, we want nothing to do with you."

That's a good way to stroke ourselves and feel very important and pure while the fascists continue their march.

What's so hard to understand about that?

And honestly, have you never read any articles in the RW where the progressive actions of non-communists are upheld for the good, real-world effects that they have, even while the limitations of the ideologies behind them may be examined and criticized? Is the concept of "critical support" just totally revisionist to you?

I think your idealism here is dangerous, Redstar.

[Burningman]

This conversation has an interesting echo of a historical debate about the role of communists in the union movement. Were we to "bore within" the existing union structures, or to create totally different and constitutionally revolutionary unions of the working class. The IWW versus the AFL.

While I agree that we need a different morality, it's important to really grasp the existential liberation of a world without gods and to start from there. I'm with the Wobblies. We can be moral, but the world is amoral.

The RCP has long promoted a kind of moralism, from their once peculiar notions of homosexuality being at odds with something they called "proletarian morality," to "resisting the politics of cruelty." I don't think that is a good foundation from which to deal with the "values" of the right. There is no "dual power" in the realm of "right."

This is sketchy, but I'm running out the door. Be back later.

[RedFlagOverTrenton]

Heh, I pretty much agree with Mundo's response to RedStar here. I'd also like to add that I doubt Christians who oppose Christian fascism are just "waiting for the right time". That's certainly making a hell of alot of assumptions that don't really have any basis in fact. I think many really, truly oppose what's going on - and moreover, christian fascism actually clashes with their religious beliefs regarding "social justice" and personal freedom. There are numerous examples of modern day Bonhoeffers, from the priests who supported or fought for the FMLN (as many flaws as they may have had), to the Catholics for Choice, the Episcopalian priests who defied their religious authorities and sanctioned gay marriages, the United Church of Christ minister who, I think, still runs Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State... etc.

One final question for Burningman: Not to derail the discussion here into something tertiary about the history of the RCP, but what's "resisting the politics of cruelty"? I've never heard that phrase used before and I do wonder what exactly it means and how you're saying it was applied. I ask out of total ignorance here.

[redstar2000GUEST]

Neither MundoQueGanar nor RedFlagOverTrenton took the trouble to seriously dispute my points.

That's disappointing.

Instead, they went scrounging through the archives to dig up a godsucker here or there who "did something progressive"...simply ignoring the historical track record of religion altogether.

I'm surprised they didn't dig up the bones of Thomas Münzer to wave in my face.

Guess what? You know that there were even SS men who found the holocaust repugnant...to the point of deliberately helping a handful of Jews escape from trains bound for Auschwitz.

Want to call them "progressive Nazis"?

Do you imagine that the social role of Nazism is in some sense "transformed" by the occasional "good Nazi"?

Do you imagine that the social role of religion is in some sense "transformed" by the occasional "progressive believer"?

What planet did you guys say you were from???

MundoQueGanar wrote: And honestly, have you never read any articles in the RW where the progressive actions of non-communists are upheld for the good, real-world effects that they have, even while the limitations of the ideologies behind them may be examined and criticized? Is the concept of "critical support" just totally revisionist to you?

How about this? Can you imagine supporting some non-communists who do something genuinely progressive without saying or implying that they are actually "progressives" or "natural allies" of the revolution?

We both support the Iraqi resistance and hope they defeat U.S. imperialism, do we not? Even though they are saturated with medieval Islamic superstition, right? (Though not as much as the pro-American quislings.)

But would you want to get up in front of people and attempt to make an argument that you've found a "progressive variant" of Islamic fundamentalism? One that we "should unite with"???

Do you understand the distinction that I'm trying to get across?

1. Yes, there certainly are non-communist progressives with whom we might form genuine alliances. Certainly, they would be secular in their orientation and committed to some form of serious resistance to the despotism of capital.

2. And there are also reactionaries who might, for historical reasons, find themselves "on the same side" as us over a particular issue...but with whom no possibility of a genuine alliance exists.

That you accept the "sincerity" of preachers at face value suggests that you should take a knowledgeable friend along with you when you go to buy a used car.



The Redstar2000 Papers

Revolutionary Left Forums

[repeater]

But as long as one sincerely believes that there is "a divine order" which "must be obeyed"...then the seeds of despotism are there and can spread at any time.

I think this statement is ironic, in that it replicates that which it claims to be against. I'm sure you don't believe in a "divine order" redstar, at least by your own definitions, but you do believe in an order, which must be obeyed. In your order religion and all its adherents are counter revolutionary. In other posts you have suggested that they should be thoroughly subjugated and perhaps even killed. If your position doesn't itself bear the seeds of despotism then I have completely misunderstood you.

Your usual rants about the evils of despotism always ring hollow on this issue of religion, because it becomes evident that the despotism which is abhorent to you is such simply because it is not your despotism; whereas draconian, simplistic categories which are "the seeds of despotism" are perfectly agreeable to you in other cases.

On another point, while religion is very interesting, what do people think about this concept of repolarization? It is not something you hear alot about in other political sectors. Mostly we hear about reconciliation. What do people make of this? What about this category of political apologists?

[redstar2000GUEST]

repeater wrote: I think this statement is ironic, in that it replicates that which it claims to be against. I'm sure you don't believe in a "divine order" redstar, at least by your own definitions, but you do believe in an order, which must be obeyed. In your order religion and all its adherents are counter revolutionary. In other posts you have suggested that they should be thoroughly subjugated and perhaps even killed. If your position doesn't itself bear the seeds of despotism then I have completely misunderstood you.

Why have you and the other RCP supporters lately become so evasive about this issue?

Let's say you were absolutely right -- I'm a "wanna-be despot".

What does that have to do with the arguments I raised about the social role of religion and its supporters?

If you think I have secret or even open despotic ambitions...then don't trust me in any position of authority! That's an easy one!

But what of your own ambition to set up a united front with "Christians Against Christian Fascism"?

What are we to make of people who think Christianity has "progressive features"...or at least "progressive followers"?

Talk about the issues...not about me.



The Redstar2000 Papers

Revolutionary Left Forums

[repeater]

Let me clarify:

Your line is that belief in a divine order which must be obeyed is despotism, or has the seeds of despotism. I simply pointed out that your use of strict idealist categorization looks very much like what you're applying it against, and that is ironic.

You use the same kind of methodology, which "carries the seeds of despotism", as the people that you use it against.

I didn't claim that you were a "wanna-be-despot" just that your conceptions on this particular issue have more in common with despotism than it seems you're likely to admit.

I don't know what RCP's ideas about religion are, so I don't pretend in this discussion to promote them.

All I would say is that to discuss the social role of religion and then extrapolate that down to every person that believes in god is very mechanical, and constitutes a division fallacy. In other words you're saying the whole, X, has properties A, B, C. Therefore the parts of X have properties A, B, C. When shown eveidence that contradicts this, you claim it's irrelevant because the social role of religion has the properties of A, B, C, and the argument starts all over going in circles from here to eternity.

In other words we could discuss the social role of class, but to then say that everyone in any class situation is a fixed being and is essentially one thing or the other is metaphysical. And to justify this claim by saying that the social role of class has these properties therefore its parts must is a fallacy.

[redstar2000GUEST]

repeater wrote: I don't know what RCP's ideas about religion are, so I don't pretend in this discussion to promote them.

Well, they're not an "official secret", are they? The article that began this thread -- and what I attempted to respond to -- suggests that the RCP has a mixed (you would call it "dialectical") view of religion...sometimes it's reactionary but "sometimes it's not".

And that does seem to be the view that you want to defend.

repeater wrote: All I would say is that to discuss the social role of religion and then extrapolate that down to every person that believes in god is very mechanical, and constitutes a division fallacy. In other words you're saying the whole, X, has properties A, B, C. Therefore the parts of X have properties A, B, C. When shown evidence that contradicts this, you claim it's irrelevant because the social role of religion has the properties of A, B, C, and the argument starts all over going in circles from here to eternity.

The "default option" is that "the parts of X must have properties A, B, and C if X as a totality has those properties".

The "evidence" you offer to refute that is trivial...like the evidence for "good Nazis".

To make a real case for "progressive religion", you'd need a massive amount of evidence. You're up against at least 5,000 years of demonstrated reaction!

Or, and I'll admit that this is at least a possibility, you would have to offer a completely new hypothesis about the social role of religion in the period preceding the collapse of class society.

It would have to read something like: "Although religion has played an entirely reactionary role throughout recorded history, that role changes in the period immediately prior to the transition from class to classless society."

And then you would have to gather the modern evidence to support that hypothesis. You would have to show that religion in the most advanced capitalist countries "changes sides" and begins to attack the ruling classes "across the board"...not just a handful of believers here and there but in significant and growing numbers.

You see what you would need here? Sunday sermons all across the country blasting Bush & Company as "servants of the devil" who deserve to "burn in Hell". Religious radio and television stations bitterly attacking every feature of capitalist "culture" as "diabolical". Famous bishops and preachers publicly calling for "God's Help" on the side of the working class and against the proud and sinful ruling class. Instead of "God Bless America" banners on the sides of religious schools, they'd say "God Bless Iraq & Curse America for its Sins".

Do you imagine that anything like that is going to happen? Or is happening?

Communism is 21st Century Christianity! -- that's the sort of thing you'd expect to hear if religion had a significantly "progressive" component.

The silence is deafening.



The Redstar2000 Papers

Revolutionary Left Forums

[repeater]

The "default option" is that "the parts of X must have properties A, B, and C if X as a totality has those properties".

The "evidence" you offer to refute that is trivial...like the evidence for "good Nazis".

To make a real case for "progressive religion", you'd need a massive amount of evidence. You're up against at least 5,000 years of demonstrated reaction!

Or, and I'll admit that this is at least a possibility, you would have to offer a completely new hypothesis about the social role of religion in the period preceding the collapse of class society.

So you are claiming that individual people who believe in god are all reactionary because the social role of religion is reactionary. This is completely fallacious. I'm not making an argument that the "social role" of religion is not reactionary. What I am saying is that you cannot generalize this down to every person who believes in religion. To do so is false, as many people have shown by giving examples of different people who believe in religion and even entire organizations that cannot be categorized as reactionary even if the larger "social role" of religion is reactionary.

I don't believe that the piece above argues that religion itself is not reactionary. I don't believe it argues for a new conception of the "social role" of religion as being something progressive. What is does argue is that individual people and even large groups of people who believe in a god or a religion are not necessarilly politically reactionary and do have an interest in fighting against reaction. The article argues that these people should be united in struggle against Fundamentalism and Fascism. You argue that the simple fact that someone believes in a god or religion means that they themselves carry the same content as religion as a social phenomenon. I disagree with you on this. I would think it is enough to point out that the very logic of this assertion is not founded upon anything. When this is pointed out you instead argue proof of religion's social role being reactionary. I agree with you on religion's social role being reactionary, not that everyone who believes in a god or a religion is reactionary.

Was Einstein reactionary?

Revolution on a mass scale cannot hope to require purity of ideology from everyone involved. To make this demand, that only atheists need apply, is essentially to demand no revolution and to create an insular and isolated group of people.

The other aspect of uniting religious people for revolution or against reaction is to struggle with them to drop their religious illusions. But this cannot be done in a dogmatic way. You cannot demand that people stop believing in religion, you can only educate them and change the material relations that create a need for religion.

I would also point out that when the masses acted in Russia, China or whatever revolution you approve of most of them still believed in a god. I'm not saying this was good, just that it was a fact. And I don't view their actions as a class, religion or not, as being reactionary.

[Burningman]

Maybe religion as such is reactionary, but religious people are not by definition the enemy.

I've read these threads for a few months now and Redstar is one of the most active posters. One thing that's become increasingly curious to me is that he never offers practical or contemporary examples of what people should by doing.

I guess the world is filled with "Little Eichmans" and there's not much to be done.

This is the problem with the anti-authoritarian method you are caught up in. There is intense focus on the ideas in people's heads and not their practical activity. Because you can't accept any mediative function, politically or philosophically, you end up out of your head because living people make living choices based on their living realities.

I think the RCP is too harsh on the religious. If someone believes in God, but is willing to put up with organizational discipline and is deeply secular, then I think they can be a communist.

I think it's funny that Redstar is breaking their balls. The RCP is the ONLY national political organization I know of that conducts atheist propaganda on the regular. It's one of the reasons I like them so much.

In the meantime, whole sections of this country are DEEPLY religious and if the existence of god is the dividing line question, WE WILL LOSE. Malcolm X wasn't a reactionary. John Brown wasn't a reactionary. The Quakers and Unitarians aren't reactionaries. The one place on my block that has hosted anti-war meetings is the local church. The black church is more complicated, as are many of those hillbilly lay preachers.

Maybe it is time to drag Thomas Munzer's bones up.

All that said, I don't think communists should engage in mobilizing left religious forces when conscious red forces are still numerically so small. Better to build an anti-religious pole (that still respects people with faith as potential allies and comrades).