From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Apr 23 2005 - 23:19:26 BST
Arlo,
Platt (previously)
> >Please explain what you mean by "reify themselves." Do you mean those in
> >power value consolidating and staying in power?
Arlo
> 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.
Xenophobia undoubtedly plays a role in power politics, but I would argue
that totalitarian governments such as those spawned under the name of
communism gain and maintain their power through terrorism -- the knock on
the door in the middle of the night and the disappearance of dissidents
to the gulag or the grave.
> >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.
The Communist Manifesto ends with this famous appeal: "The communists
disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their
ends can only be attained by forcible overthrow of all existing social
conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution."
Followers of Marx have taken him at his word.
The horrors inflicted by the Roman Catholic church in the Middle Ages
were, I submit, had everything to do with religious thought at the time,
namely, to save souls from everlasting damnation.
Your personal views as a secularist don't affect the broader point about
secular communism being defeated by the Judeo-Christian West.
> 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.
See "forcible overthrow" as encouraged by Marx in his Manifesto (above).
> 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?
No, of course not. Clement V distorted the teachings of Jesus. But Lenin,
Castro, Mao, etc. followed the teachings of Marx. Are you suggesting that
Marx didn't advocate the "forcible overthrow of all existing social
conditions?" That we really didn't mean what he wrote?
> 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?
I freely admit bad things were done in the name of Christianity in the past.
But, I've tried to confine the debate to the 20th century as Pirsig did regarding
the battle between the social and intellectual levels. In the modern age since
World War I, the mass killings have been initiated by non-Christian nations. I
think there's a message in that as we go forward.
> >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.
By morally-mature religion I'm referring to Christianity as influenced by
the Enlightenment and the evidence of it's role in world affairs,
especially under the auspices of Pope John Paul II, in the 20th century.
> 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.
The problem as Pirsig put it is that rational secularism has "no provision
for morals." To disprove Pirsig, would you care to elaborate on the
morality of Marxism? I believe Pirsig referred to what intellectuals cited
as morality a "vague, amorphous soup of sentiments." What does Marx offer?
> >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? ;-)
I'm suggesting that the basis for democracy in the modern world is the
Judeo-Christian faith, you know, "endowed by our Creator" with rights to
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness coming from God, not by
permission of men such as Marx.
> 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).
Yes. Utopian schemes usually depend on violating man's nature. Too bad the
millions have to be slaughtered to realize that lesson.
> 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.
Seems you blame corporate America for most of the world's troubles. Also I
gather you agree with Marx and that ownership of private property ought
to be abolished. That's indeed frightening, Arlo. I'm relieved to know I
won't have to worry about it anytime soon. :-)
> More in a following email....
Yes, more to come.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 23 2005 - 23:59:04 BST