[Marx] I put on my anti-coat and wizard hat

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [Marx] I put on my anti-coat and wizard hat

(Thread IKs: dead gay comedy forums)

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Needing a bump to the front page, it's a shame when it's not there. I've been reading more Plekhanov lately and haven't formed thoughts worth sharing so here's something related to materialism in general, though not particularly Marxist unless you interpret it that way.

The Protestants removed certain books from their Bible. I wonder if the real reasons are as they said. John Calvin was especially insistent on this. Anyway, here is a passage from one of those, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), that I found striking:

Sirach 34 posted:

Gratitude for Laborers
The wisdom of the scribe depends on the opportunity of leisure;
only the one who has little business can become wise.

How can one become wise who handles the plough,
and who glories in the shaft of a goad,
who drives oxen and is occupied with their work,
and whose talk is about bulls?

He sets his heart on ploughing furrows,
and he is careful about fodder for the heifers.

So it is with every artisan and master artisan
who labours by night as well as by day;
those who cut the signets of seals,
each is diligent in making a great variety;
they set their heart on painting a lifelike image,
and they are careful to finish their work.

So it is with the smith, sitting by the anvil,
intent on his ironwork;
the breath of the fire melts his flesh,
and he struggles with the heat of the furnace;
the sound of the hammer deafens his ears,
and his eyes are on the pattern of the object.
He sets his heart on finishing his handiwork,
and he is careful to complete its decoration.

So it is with is the potter sitting at his work
and turning the wheel with his feet;
he is always deeply concerned over his products,
and he produces them in quantity.

He moulds the clay with his arm
and makes it pliable with his feet;
he sets his heart on finishing the glazing,
and he takes care in firing the kiln.

All these rely on their hands,
and all are skilful in their own work.

Without them no city can be inhabited,
and wherever they live, they will not go hungry.

Yet they are not sought out for the council of the people,
nor do they attain eminence in the public assembly.

They do not sit in the judge's seat,
nor do they understand the decisions of the courts;
they cannot expound discipline or judgement,
and they are not found among the rulers.

But they maintain the fabric of the world,
and their concern is for the exercise of their trade.

How different the one who devotes himself
to the study of the law of the Most High!

Bringing it back to Marx, obviously people are being shaped by their material conditions, surplus labor underlies political formation and social structure, the division of material and mental labor creates ideology and so on.

Perhaps the thread should be stickied but maybe let it stay as our conscience so that we can see it fall and rise in the subforum index.

# ? Apr 6, 2023 01:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 16:48

Fleetwood: Mar 26, 2010; biggest hochul head in china

Sunny Side Up posted:

What do you think of this? I�ve been wary of Harvey since Vijay Prashad was critical of him.

https://critisticuffs.org/texts/david-harvey

quote:

Something that is not useful cannot be sold: a cheese which has gone off cannot be sold.

someone who has never shopped at a winn-dixie

# ? Apr 6, 2023 12:59

Pepe Silvia Browne: Jan 1, 2007

croup coughfield posted:

for some reason this makes me think of cspam every time i read it

quote:

Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it.

quote:

Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it.

quote:

Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it.

tattoo it on my forehead so i never forget

# ? Apr 6, 2023 13:24

croup coughfield: Apr 8, 2020; Can't post for 74 days!

mawarannahr posted:

Needing a bump to the front page, it's a shame when it's not there. I've been reading more Plekhanov lately and haven't formed thoughts worth sharing so here's something related to materialism in general, though not particularly Marxist unless you interpret it that way.

The Protestants removed certain books from their Bible. I wonder if the real reasons are as they said. John Calvin was especially insistent on this. Anyway, here is a passage from one of those, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), that I found striking:

Bringing it back to Marx, obviously people are being shaped by their material conditions, surplus labor underlies political formation and social structure, the division of material and mental labor creates ideology and so on.

Perhaps the thread should be stickied but maybe let it stay as our conscience so that we can see it fall and rise in the subforum index.

good quote and post. lol that this got cut from the mainline releases

# ? Apr 6, 2023 16:22

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

I did a read-through of the Bible last year and something that struck me, which doesn't come across well when ingesting it piece by piece weekly, is just how much of the text is, by volume, about taking care of the material needs of the poor. Especifically how much time the prophets spend yelling at the various kings of Israel about it, to say nothing of how it is basically Luke the Evangelist's whole thing. A big chunk of modern Protestantism basically has to use a kind of Jeffersonian Bible with just Prosperity Gospel poo poo to avoid talking about it.

I understand historically and materially why a lot of Marxists object to Christianity, but I've always thought there was a powerful synthesis of socialism and Christianity that doesn't deny or contradict the goals of either. Note, for that I am emphatically separating Christianity from how it is taught and practiced by most major denominations.

Oh, and if croup wants me to stop talking about Christian poo poo in here, I'll cut it out. I know it's a touchy thing and I don't want to derail discussion of Marxism in general with my bullshit if folks don't find it interesting or enlightening.

# ? Apr 6, 2023 16:46

AnimeIsTrash: Jun 30, 2018

looking at the world: hmm yes all these problems are systematic and they cant be fixed at the individual level

looking at religion: despite every major christian organization donating to anti lgbtq+ causes did yall know jesus said to love the poor?

# ? Apr 6, 2023 16:50

Al!: Apr 2, 2010

not to sound flippant but what's the utopian goal of christian socialism? the global liberation of labor followed by the international proletariat abandoning their faiths including all the incorrect christians?

# ? Apr 6, 2023 17:00

dead gay comedy forums: Oct 21, 2011

The christian utopia has very strong parallels to communism, and that�s priests and preachers that say it. Not theoreticians.

(incidentally I said that to my mother and she flipped out)

# ? Apr 6, 2023 17:21

Centrist Committee: Aug 6, 2019

Al! posted:

not to sound flippant but what's the utopian goal of christian socialism? the global liberation of labor followed by the international proletariat abandoning their faiths including all the incorrect christians?

I think indigenous plurinationalism in latin america is a good benchmark: strength through diversity. it�s just another way of expressing communism. marx gave it a scientific formulation; an actual, material method for constructing the kingdom of heaven on earth

# ? Apr 6, 2023 17:23

gradenko_2000: Oct 5, 2010; HELL SERPENT; Lipstick Apathy

I've been reading "Critique of Maoist Reason" but at something like just ten pages a stretch because hoo boy it's a challenge to mentally digest. I'm having fun though!

Azathoth posted:

I did a read-through of the Bible last year and something that struck me, which doesn't come across well when ingesting it piece by piece weekly, is just how much of the text is, by volume, about taking care of the material needs of the poor.

I posted some excerpts reflecting upon this very thing in the Doomsday Econ thread.

# ? Apr 6, 2023 17:25

Al!: Apr 2, 2010

so do the nonchristians need reeducation because otherwish simply allowing people to destroy their souls and even worse influence the souls of others sounds like liberalism

# ? Apr 6, 2023 17:26

Centrist Committee: Aug 6, 2019

gradenko_2000 posted:

I've been reading "Critique of Maoist Reason" but at something like just ten pages a stretch because hoo boy it's a challenge to mentally digest. I'm having fun though!

I posted some excerpts reflecting upon this very thing in the Doomsday Econ thread.

im a fan of jmp

gotta say, this reconnection with radical religious movements is much more exciting than that stupid patriotic socialism bullshit that was making the rounds a while ago

# ? Apr 6, 2023 17:28

AnimeIsTrash: Jun 30, 2018

Centrist Committee posted:

im a fan of jmp

gotta say, this reconnection with radical religious movements is much more exciting than that stupid patriotic socialism bullshit that was making the rounds a while ago

its so loving boring and tedious, people should just admit they had a spiritual crisis during the pandemic and turned to god (christianity)

all systematic criticism seem to go away when it comes to this one particular topic

# ? Apr 6, 2023 17:31

tristeham: Jul 31, 2022

Centrist Committee posted:

gotta say, this reconnection with radical religious movements is much more exciting than that stupid patriotic socialism bullshit that was making the rounds a while ago

it's the same garbage op, just taking different forms

# ? Apr 6, 2023 17:36

indigi: Jul 20, 2004; Can't post for 3 hours!

AnimeIsTrash posted:

its so loving boring and tedious, people should just admit they had a spiritual crisis during the pandemic and turned to god (christianity)

all systematic criticism seem to go away when it comes to this one particular topic

agreed. also 85% eventually become trad

# ? Apr 6, 2023 17:36

croup coughfield: Apr 8, 2020; Can't post for 74 days!

Azathoth posted:

Oh, and if croup wants me to stop talking about Christian poo poo in here, I'll cut it out. I know it's a touchy thing and I don't want to derail discussion of Marxism in general with my bullshit if folks don't find it interesting or enlightening.

discussion of the political nature and history of religion is a-ok by me as long as the core rule of the thread - being normal - is observed.

# ? Apr 6, 2023 17:47

croup coughfield: Apr 8, 2020; Can't post for 74 days!

and no tweets

# ? Apr 6, 2023 17:49

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

Azathoth posted:

I understand historically and materially why a lot of Marxists object to Christianity, but I've always thought there was a powerful synthesis of socialism and Christianity that doesn't deny or contradict the goals of either. Note, for that I am emphatically separating Christianity from how it is taught and practiced by most major denominations.

well that's part of the analysis, which christianity?

the medieval caltholic christianity that's about upholding feudalism?
the protestant christianity that's about the shift towards towards cities and bourgeois society?
the prosperty gospel that's about openly worshipping money itself?

the one that's appealing is the very early christianity, the one for women and slaves and the conquered peoples of the roman empire. of course it's vastly more palatable and it's why it's christianity of peasants everywhere. but the solution is terrible btw, it tells you to give unto caesar what is caesar's and tells you that you'll be rewarded after you die. this is the source of the conflict, it's a salve for a wound that marxism instructs you to fight and christianity instructs you to endure

this doesn't mean you have to be annoying ofc, you don't get mad at someone wanting some relief. but there's a reason that african american civil rights in the us went with moses and not jesus for framing, you need a goal for this life

# ? Apr 6, 2023 18:09

croup coughfield: Apr 8, 2020; Can't post for 74 days!

something i'd also like to emphasize is that "taking care of the poor" is not really relevant to socialism per se. socialism is about society's organization as relates to the means of production. it is not about sharing, or taking care of each other, or making everyone be nice or whatever. not to clown on az specifically, it's just something i see a lot. "jesus was socialist! :imunfunny:

" grinds my gears for a lot of reasons but foremost because its rooted in this misunderstanding that i ultimately find muddies an already pretty complicated subject.

# ? Apr 6, 2023 18:14

Al!: Apr 2, 2010

croup coughfield posted:

something i'd also like to emphasize is that "taking care of the poor" is not really relevant to socialism per se. socialism is about society's organization as relates to the means of production. it is not about sharing, or taking care of each other, or making everyone be nice or whatever. not to clown on az specifically, it's just something i see a lot. "jesus was socialist! " grinds my gears for a lot of reasons but foremost because its rooted in this misunderstanding that i ultimately find muddies an already pretty complicated subject.

yes, im afraid we should refer to christian socialism by its true name, christian trotskyism

# ? Apr 6, 2023 18:17

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

croup coughfield posted:

something i'd also like to emphasize is that "taking care of the poor" is not really relevant to socialism per se. socialism is about society's organization as relates to the means of production. it is not about sharing, or taking care of each other, or making everyone be nice or whatever. not to clown on az specifically, it's just something i see a lot. "jesus was socialist! " grinds my gears for a lot of reasons but foremost because its rooted in this misunderstanding that i ultimately find muddies an already pretty complicated subject.

There's a reason utopian (pre-Marxist) socialists were often heavily influenced by Christianity. It's a very simple vision of socialism: just treat each other well, share important things in common, build yourself a little egalitarian commune where there's no poverty, and that's all that's needed. There's your little socialist utopia. You don't need class struggle, you don't need a social revolution, you just need to convince people that living in a utopian socialist commune is better than living in an early nineteenth-century industrial slum and everyone will see the light. There's a reason the scientific socialists who came along in the following decades clowned on those guys so hard, because theirs was a surface-level analysis of deep socioeconomic problems, and in the end their proposed solutions were closer to anarchist ideas about everybody voluntarily changing society on a small scale rather than needing any kind of mass mobilization, conflict, or struggle to drive the progress of history away from the hands of the bourgeoisie.

# ? Apr 6, 2023 18:19

AnimeIsTrash: Jun 30, 2018

croup coughfield posted:

something i'd also like to emphasize is that "taking care of the poor" is not really relevant to socialism per se. socialism is about society's organization as relates to the means of production. it is not about sharing, or taking care of each other, or making everyone be nice or whatever. not to clown on az specifically, it's just something i see a lot. "jesus was socialist! " grinds my gears for a lot of reasons but foremost because its rooted in this misunderstanding that i ultimately find muddies an already pretty complicated subject.

a lot of it seems like type of stuff you'd see early on after 2016 where people would use socialism to justify liking things. you can just admit you like it or find it interesting without it being inherent socialist. its also very telling its always white leftists and christanity

i think you can find critiques of the rich in most religions, but at the end of the day you have to address the class question and there isn't really any religious socialist movement that does that

# ? Apr 6, 2023 18:20

Good Soldier Svejk: Jul 5, 2010

It seems unfair to suggest Marx didn't dabble in utopianism. How else do we end up with the famous "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

# ? Apr 6, 2023 18:25

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Brain Candy posted:

well that's part of the analysis, which christianity?

the medieval caltholic christianity that's about upholding feudalism?
the protestant christianity that's about the shift towards towards cities and bourgeois society?
the prosperty gospel that's about openly worshipping money itself?

the one that's appealing is the very early christianity, the one for women and slaves and the conquered peoples of the roman empire. of course it's vastly more palatable and it's why it's christianity of peasants everywhere. but the solution is terrible btw, it tells you to give unto caesar what is caesar's and tells you that you'll be rewarded after you die. this is the source of the conflict, it's a salve for a wound that marxism instructs you to fight and christianity instructs you to endure

this doesn't mean you have to be annoying ofc, you don't get mad at someone wanting some relief. but there's a reason that african american civil rights in the us went with moses and not jesus for framing, you need a goal for this life

It's not exactly shocking that the kinda of Christianity popular in the imperial core are compatible with said imperialism, so the general answer to "what kind of Christianity" would generally be "liberation theology" though that is obviously a very broad term that encompasses a wide range of thought. It's no surprise that liberation theology is not very popular in the US and that a lot of its major figures come from the global south.

# ? Apr 6, 2023 18:28

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

croup coughfield posted:

something i'd also like to emphasize is that "taking care of the poor" is not really relevant to socialism per se. socialism is about society's organization as relates to the means of production. it is not about sharing, or taking care of each other, or making everyone be nice or whatever. not to clown on az specifically, it's just something i see a lot. "jesus was socialist! " grinds my gears for a lot of reasons but foremost because its rooted in this misunderstanding that i ultimately find muddies an already pretty complicated subject.

i agree in sentiment but saying it's not about taking care of each other is incorrect, it's about creating and maintaining a system where that can happen as a matter of course rather than as exception. making it boring and rote and not a thing that needs heroes or saints, aligning sentiment with conditions by use of reason and force

it's just that as you say it's not about pointing to every nice thing and calling it socialism

# ? Apr 6, 2023 18:32

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

AnimeIsTrash posted:

a lot of it seems like type of stuff you'd see early on after 2016 where people would use socialism to justify liking things. you can just admit you like it or find it interesting without it being inherent socialist. its also very telling its always white leftists and christanity

i think you can find critiques of the rich in most religions, but at the end of the day you have to address the class question and there isn't really any religious socialist movement that does that

To be clear, I don't see Christianity as essential to the process, my point is that I don't see a destruction of religion as necessary to abolishing class and changing modes of production. If anything, accepting those forms of faith that are compatible provides an additional mechanism by which to get people on board with the ideals of Marxism. The concept of "Godless Communism" has been extraordinarily effective at getting workers to reject Marxism outright and I do not see why it has to be that way.

# ? Apr 6, 2023 18:34

Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3: Nov 15, 2003; Can't post for 3 hours!

Brain Candy posted:

the one that's appealing is the very early christianity, the one for women and slaves and the conquered peoples of the roman empire. of course it's vastly more palatable and it's why it's christianity of peasants everywhere. but the solution is terrible btw, it tells you to give unto caesar what is caesar's and tells you that you'll be rewarded after you die. this is the source of the conflict, it's a salve for a wound that marxism instructs you to fight and christianity instructs you to endure

this doesn't mean you have to be annoying ofc, you don't get mad at someone wanting some relief. but there's a reason that african american civil rights in the us went with moses and not jesus for framing, you need a goal for this life

the message of jesus christ was to restore the jubilee year, which was a periodic cancellation of debts and of debt servitude. The Rome-aligned jewish authorities had abolished the right to jubilee by allowing a clause in debt agreements to effectively ignore it. he sought to make a material impact in the here-and-now (or the there-and-then). the shift to the afterlife after his death came out of despair, for enacting such measures in the Roman empire, where debts are sacred, was completely impossible.

# ? Apr 6, 2023 18:39

namesake: Jun 19, 2006; "When I was a girl, around 12 or 13, I had a fantasy that I'd grow up to marry Captain Scarlet, but he'd be busy fighting the Mysterons so I'd cuckold him with the sexiest people I could think of - Nigel Mansell, Pat Sharp and Mr. Blobby."

Good Soldier Svejk posted:

It seems unfair to suggest Marx didn't dabble in utopianism. How else do we end up with the famous "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

Nah the quote arises after he spends paragraphs talking about all the technical limitations that actually need to be overcome in the short and long term to actually live up to that slogan:

Marx, Critique of Gotha Program posted:

What is "a fair distribution"?

Do not the bourgeois assert that the present-day distribution is "fair"? And is it not, in fact, the only "fair" distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production? Are economic relations regulated by legal conceptions, or do not, on the contrary, legal relations arise out of economic ones? Have not also the socialist sectarians the most varied notions about "fair" distribution?

To understand what is implied in this connection by the phrase "fair distribution", we must take the first paragraph and this one together. The latter presupposes a society wherein the instruments of labor are common property and the total labor is co-operatively regulated, and from the first paragraph we learn that "the proceeds of labor belong undiminished with equal right to all members of society."

"To all members of society"? To those who do not work as well? What remains then of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor? Only to those members of society who work? What remains then of the "equal right" of all members of society?

But "all members of society" and "equal right" are obviously mere phrases. The kernel consists in this, that in this communist society every worker must receive the "undiminished" Lassallean "proceeds of labor".

Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.

From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption.

Before this is divided among the individuals, there has to be deducted again, from it: First, the general costs of administration not belonging to production. This part will, from the outset, be very considerably restricted in comparison with present-day society, and it diminishes in proportion as the new society develops. Second, that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. From the outset, this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society, and it grows in proportion as the new society develops. Third, funds for those unable to work, etc., in short, for what is included under so-called official poor relief today.

Only now do we come to the "distribution" which the program, under Lassallean influence, alone has in view in its narrow fashion � namely, to that part of the means of consumption which is divided among the individual producers of the co-operative society.

The "undiminished" proceeds of labor have already unnoticeably become converted into the "diminished" proceeds, although what the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.

Just as the phrase of the "undiminished" proceeds of labor has disappeared, so now does the phrase of the "proceeds of labor" disappear altogether.

Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning.

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society � after the deductions have been made � exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form.

Hence, equal right here is still in principle � bourgeois right, although principle and practice are no longer at loggerheads, while the exchange of equivalents in commodity exchange exists only on the average and not in the individual case.

In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor.

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only � for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly � only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

# ? Apr 6, 2023 18:39

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

Azathoth posted:

It's not exactly shocking that the kinda of Christianity popular in the imperial core are compatible with said imperialism, so the general answer to "what kind of Christianity" would generally be "liberation theology" though that is obviously a very broad term that encompasses a wide range of thought. It's no surprise that liberation theology is not very popular in the US and that a lot of its major figures come from the global south.

okay then who cares? at least for you who i'm assuming is in the imperial core? there's no way to have any kind of synthesis that isn't poisoned from the start

# ? Apr 6, 2023 18:42

Centrist Committee: Aug 6, 2019

Brain Candy posted:

okay then who cares? at least for you who i'm assuming is in the imperial core? there's no way to have any kind of synthesis that isn't poisoned from the start

mlk got got for doing an effective christian socialism

# ? Apr 6, 2023 18:46

redneck nazgul: Apr 25, 2013

Azathoth posted:

It's not exactly shocking that the kinda of Christianity popular in the imperial core are compatible with said imperialism, so the general answer to "what kind of Christianity" would generally be "liberation theology" though that is obviously a very broad term that encompasses a wide range of thought. It's no surprise that liberation theology is not very popular in the US and that a lot of its major figures come from the global south.

you also have to consider that jesus' ministry had generations of revisions and additions and such before it became recognizable as catholicism, which had a vested interest in maintaining its own institutions and temporal power.

jesus was an actual dude, possibly talking revolutionary ideas and might have been sentenced to death. what survives are either fragments of texts or the sanitized imperial rome friendly versions.

Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3 posted:

the message of jesus christ was to restore the jubilee year, which was a periodic cancellation of debts and of debt servitude. The Rome-aligned jewish authorities had abolished the right to jubilee by allowing a clause in debt agreements to effectively ignore it. he sought to make a material impact in the here-and-now (or the there-and-then). the shift to the afterlife after his death came out of despair, for enacting such measures in the Roman empire, where debts are sacred, was completely impossible.

this has also been scrubbed from christianity as a whole. even the one big surviving revolutionary act of kicking the moneychangers out of the temple has been sanitized.

if i recall correctly, the moneychangers were temple authorities making a profit off the required materials for sacrifices. this has been dumbed down to "moneychangers" and makes it look like jesus went and hosed up aramaic coinstar.

# ? Apr 6, 2023 18:47

AnimeIsTrash: Jun 30, 2018

Azathoth posted:

To be clear, I don't see Christianity as essential to the process, my point is that I don't see a destruction of religion as necessary to abolishing class and changing modes of production. If anything, accepting those forms of faith that are compatible provides an additional mechanism by which to get people on board with the ideals of Marxism. The concept of "Godless Communism" has been extraordinarily effective at getting workers to reject Marxism outright and I do not see why it has to be that way.

if you have a classless, stateless society do you really think there will be a hole in people's hearts that will need to be filled by religion? marx's whole argument was that religion fills this hole which is created by capitalism, without capitalism that hole wouldn't exist.

then what religion are you talking about? the caste system is inherently part of Hinduism, how are you resolving that in a classless society? theravada buddhists are some of the virulently anti communist people in the world.

# ? Apr 6, 2023 18:48

indigi: Jul 20, 2004; Can't post for 3 hours!

Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3 posted:

the shift to the afterlife after his death came out of despair, for enacting such measures in the Roman empire, where debts are sacred, was completely impossible.

also because he was supposed to come back right away, then didn't

# ? Apr 6, 2023 18:48

MeatwadIsGod: Sep 30, 2004; Foretold by Gyromancy

Brain Candy posted:

okay then who cares? at least for you who i'm assuming is in the imperial core? there's no way to have any kind of synthesis that isn't poisoned from the start

Yeah, while I think Christianity of the expropriators (mostly European colonizers and their descendants) vs Christianity of the expropriated (the victims of said colonizers) is an interesting case study in base <--> superstructure dynamics, I don't know how much utility it has for organizing, developing class consciousness, etc. if you live where the former Christianity is dominant. You're still circling back to the early Marx critique that, while religion has historically been a balm to the exploited classes, the real task of humanity is to understand itself as a product of real material and historical circumstances and to address its needs and wants on that basis rather than out of any essentially religious impulse. I think this task would probably take centuries even under the most favorable conditions but I'm just spitballing here. We're still talking about a trajectory that aims to do away with the material circumstances that make religion appealing in the first place, however long it may take in practice.

# ? Apr 6, 2023 18:51

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

Centrist Committee posted:

mlk got got for doing an effective christian socialism

we have different definitions of effective i guess? he got almost immediately owned when he tried it

# ? Apr 6, 2023 18:53

indigi: Jul 20, 2004; Can't post for 3 hours!

AnimeIsTrash posted:

if you have a classless, stateless society do you really think there will be a hole in people's hearts that will need to be filled by religion?

I'd bet yes, but it's also one of those things that is impossible to predict really. religion existed before states and classes, it wouldn't be a surprise if it continues to exist after. its numbers will continue to dwindle but I think there'd probably be a healthy minority of religious people

# ? Apr 6, 2023 18:54

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

AnimeIsTrash posted:

if you have a classless, stateless society do you really think there will be a hole in people's hearts that will need to be filled by religion? marx's whole argument was that religion fills this hole which is created by capitalism, without capitalism that hole wouldn't exist.

then what religion are you talking about? the caste system is inherently part of Hinduism, how are you resolving that in a classless society? theravada buddhists are some of the virulently anti communist people in the world.

Yeah, I think that in a stateless and classless society a section of people are going to look to the spiritual. If anything, as people's material needs are fully met, more people will turn to philosophical and intellectual pursuits, which will necessarily mean spirituality or religion for some subset of those people.

# ? Apr 6, 2023 18:55

StashAugustine: Mar 24, 2013; Do not trust in hope- it will betray you! Only faith and hatred sustain.

AnimeIsTrash posted:

if you have a classless, stateless society do you really think there will be a hole in people's hearts that will need to be filled by religion?

I mean yeah, whether or not you believe it that is the central claim of at least Christianity and arguably most other religions, that there is some good which does not exist in this material world. Doesn't mean trying to improve people's material conditions isn't worthwhile for a whole bunch of reasons, and Marxist analysis provides a bunch of arguments for why and how building a classless society is the best way forward

# ? Apr 6, 2023 18:58

Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3: Nov 15, 2003; Can't post for 3 hours!

redneck nazgul posted:

you also have to consider that jesus' ministry had generations of revisions and additions and such before it became recognizable as catholicism, which had a vested interest in maintaining its own institutions and temporal power.

jesus was an actual dude, possibly talking revolutionary ideas and might have been sentenced to death. what survives are either fragments of texts or the sanitized imperial rome friendly versions.

this has also been scrubbed from christianity as a whole. even the one big surviving revolutionary act of kicking the moneychangers out of the temple has been sanitized.

if i recall correctly, the moneychangers were temple authorities making a profit off the required materials for sacrifices. this has been dumbed down to "moneychangers" and makes it look like jesus went and hosed up aramaic coinstar.

lenders. they were lenders. they loaned money. the temples were where the money was kept. and the historical reason to loan money is not to receive the interest. the purpose of lending money is to seize the asset that has been offered as security - land and people. this goes back to ancient sumer. it wasn't considered evil, really, by its nature. they understood that lending had to happen to let society function, but they also understood that, over time, debts tended to exceed the capacity to pay, resulting in an entrenched oligarchy that could threaten the king. thats why there was a periodic policy of "reset," to free people (not the war slaves, not the chattel slaves) and put them back on their land.

land reform especially was a common practice, unthinkable today. the jewish people probably got the idea from babylon and they made it the jubilee declared by god instead of a king, because they didn't trust kings.

# ? Apr 6, 2023 19:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 16:48

Brain Candy: May 18, 2006

MeatwadIsGod posted:

Yeah, while I think Christianity of the expropriators (mostly European colonizers and their descendants) vs Christianity of the expropriated (the victims of said colonizers) is an interesting case study in base <--> superstructure dynamics, I don't know how much utility it has for organizing, developing class consciousness, etc. if you live where the former Christianity is dominant. You're still circling back to the early Marx critique that, while religion has historically been a balm to the exploited classes, the real task of humanity is to understand itself as a product of real material and historical circumstances and to address its needs and wants on that basis rather than out of any essentially religious impulse. I think this task would probably take centuries even under the most favorable conditions but I'm just spitballing here. We're still talking about a trajectory that aims to do away with the material circumstances that make religion appealing in the first place, however long it may take in practice.

this is what I'm trying to point at with the moses vs jesus

moses: 'let my people go' -> promised land -> leader that doesn't get to make it there. all these things are goal oriented, they prep you as an oppressed person towards bettering conditions for your oppressed people
jesus: gets brutally murdered, but is the better person that is predestined to win in the end? this helps you endure, but it's passive, it's the know your role facet

you'll note the first draws a box around people and gives them a goal that might transcend individually them but still has material consequences

# ? Apr 6, 2023 19:03

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [Marx] I put on my anti-coat and wizard hat

«‹›389 »