Re: MD Access to Quality

From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Thu Apr 21 2005 - 17:26:54 BST

Next message: Arlo Bensinger: "Re: MD Access to Quality"

Previous message: hampday@earthlink.net: "Re: MD Access to Quality"
Maybe in reply to: Ant McWatt: "MD Access to Quality"
Next in thread: Platt Holden: "Re: MD Access to Quality"
Reply: Platt Holden: "Re: MD Access to Quality"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Platt,

>Arlo:
>
>
>>Actually, the problem in all cases (from religious nationalism to the
>>dictators you mention) is likely not even truly "intellectual", but rather
>>evidence of the pervasive need for (static) power structures to reify
>>themselves.
>>
>>
>
>Please explain what you mean by "reify themselves." Do you mean those in
>power value consolidating and staying in power?
>
>
Yes. The historical means to this end were to eliminate opposition and
control language. Xenophobia is manipulated by power structures to
motivate even those not immediately benefiting by the power structure.
It is by securing a "common ground of fear" that power structures are
able to secure a base of support that may not otherwise support the
structure. Another is, of course, offering "opiating rewards" (as Marx
might have said) such as cheap oil to make people turn a blind eye to
actions (by the oil companies) that would be disagreeable to those not
immediately reaping the prime rewards (such as billion dollar tax breaks
which line corporate coffers). Historically, as "opiating rewards"
decline, public acknowledgement of power abuse becomes more vocal. But,
I do believe that manipulating xenophobia has been the more used tactic.

>The "context" of my statement above is the 20th century. But even in the
>darkness of its the Middle Ages, the brutality of the Christian church in
>terms of numbers murdered doesn't come close to the genocides perpetrated
>by secular-dominated governments in modern times. When it comes to mass
>slaughter, Marxist communism takes the prize.
>
>

Again, I think you're missing the point. The "numbers murdered" in
recent times had nothing to do with "secularism". It had to do with bad
people who attained power (through violence or manipulating xenophobia),
and who then sought all means to consolidate this power. As did the
"numbers murdered" historically by the church had nothing to do with
"religion", it had to do with people seekign to consolidate power. I'm
what you would likely refer to as a "secularist", and yet the murder of
anyone appalls me to no end (from "erring on the side of life" to
finding the use of napalm on Iraqi citizen so grossly immoral its hard
to conceive).

Marx never advocated murder, let alone genocide. Nothing in his writings
(that I have ever encountered) suggest anything of the sort. That his
advocacy that workers should demand the benefits of their labor is
deliberately associated with these dictators is simply evidence of the
way power structures use fear and propaganda to villify opposition
through distortive discourse. Codemn Stalin and Pol Pot as brutally
evil men, they were. But to say they acted in such a way because they
were inspired by Marx is not only assinine, and factually wrong, but
also deliberatly deceitful and manipulative.

Most estimate the death toll of the crusades at around 1.5 million. The
crusades *alone*. Are you suggesting that Jesus is responsible for this?
If not, who is? When Clement V slow roasted the leaders of the Knights
Templar over open flames, was this because of what Jesus advocated or
wrote? Would you say that Christianity advocates slow roasting people?

Although we've been down the American path before, and I know you have
pretty much stated that you believe that all the indiginous people on
the North and South American continents pretty much exterminated
themselves just as we conveniently arrived to take dominion of empty
continents, anyone looking at the historical record will easily see that
millions were killed/tortured/maimed to consolidate and strenghthen
monarchical and papal power in Europe. Is Jesus to blame for this?

>
>
>>Add to this power structure the (seemingly) xenophobic tendencies of
>>humans, and one can see the simple formula that underlies the historical
>>murder of millions, whether "in the name of" Pol Pot or Hitler or Jesus or
>>Mohammed.
>>
>>
>
>I wouldn't lump Jesus and Mohammed with Pol Pot or Hitler in terms of
>numbers slaughtered "in the name of." But, xenophobia being a natural
>state of man I agree with, stemming from ancient evolutionary struggles.
>
>
>
I would. Look at the historical record. There are certainly differences,
Pol Pot and Hitler ordered the genocides, Jesus and Mohammed were men of
peace. However, the power structures that usurped their respective
messages have used religious nationalism to order and carry out
genocides as well. The problem is that, since you side with
Christianity, you see them as "just wars". But the historical death toll
is there. Maybe spread out over two centuries, but there.

>>In short, it is not about whether "religion" or "intellectualism" has
>>caused more brutality. Both are, for the most part, innocent bystanders in
>>a historical quest for power; power in the papacy, power in the Kremlin,
>>power in the Monarchy, etc., and an arguable xenophobic tendency inherent
>>in people; fear of blacks, fear of turks, fear of liberals, fear of
>>conservatives, fear of muslims, fear of christians... fear of "the other".
>>
>>
>
>We'll just have to disagree on whether morally-mature religion and morally-
>bereft intellectualism were "innocent bystanders" in the wars of the 20th
>century.
>
>
>
Problem is, Platt, its hardly "morally-mature religion". If it were, it
would not need the brutal displays of violence to consolidate its power
that we have seen historically. But again there's that deceptive pairing.

But here's my core point:

What I'm saying is that morally-bereft power structures; whether
"secular" or "religious" (or anything else) are what is to blame. I
agree that the lack of morals in pursuit of power consolidation has
driven this. That is, the "church" is no more "moral" than "secular
government". Both are static social patterns guided (historically) by
the need to reify and consolidate power. Both have undertaken immoral
actions towards this end.

Both spiritual and intellectual people can be (and usually are) driven
by morals. These people, whether through divine inspiration or rational
secularism, can condemn the genocides of the power structures as
immoral. Marx would have been appalled at Stalin's actions, as would
Jesus of Clement V.

>
>Marx is the father of the communist (intellectual) political system which
>has proved itself to be totalitarian wherever it's been tried -- Russia,
>China, Cuba, etc. By contrast, the democratic political system,
>originating in ancient Greece, was born again by Judeo-Christian advocacy.
>I think there's a message in this comparative history.
>
>
>
Are you suggesting that democracy is not an intellectual political
system? ;-)

In all these instances of "communism", I think you should really read
Marx. You'd see that none of the attempts were anything more than
dictators seeking to manipulate "the people" by (mis)using the rhetoric
of Marx. True Marxism, if it ever comes to be, depends on the social
evolution of man beyond the greed to accumulate individual wealth. I
don't see this happening any time soon, if ever (in many ways, if Marx
was guilty of anything, it was to be overly optomistic about the
evolving nature of man).

For example, a friend of mine had proposed to his neighbors that they
all chip in and buy a snowblower for the street. They could take turns
housing it, or agree upon setting up a common shed. Instead, many of his
neighbors decided they had to own their own snowblowers, to blow out
snow from about 15ft of sidewalk. So, this street now houses more than a
half dozen snowblowers that could each individually do the entire steet.

The point is, that individual ownership (as one example) has been so
ingrained in us by corporate America, because it fuels the corporate
machines, that even something as remotely "communistic" as common
ownership of a snowblower is not possible. So I wouldn't worry about
Marxism anytime soon, Platt.

>I certainly agree that static religious practices, unlike a market
>economy, are hardly conducive to providing fertile ground for Dynamic
>Quality to flourish.
>
>
>
Well, then I won't belabor the point. :-)