cars posted:i don't really have time to go through all this but, gently, there is a reason that liberation theology exists, there's a history behind it, there's a reason it's been opposed by the snakes in rome, and it is at best myopic, at worst imperialist, to compare the church to a bourgeois political party from the center of empire
the church is definitely at the center of empire, you can tell by how richard dawkins critically supports your missionaries in africa because they're fighting the good fight against islam
c_man posted:you'll have to tell me, i haven't got a clue
yeah you do, don't play dumb. take a random fucking sample of catholics. most of them will not be white, they will not speak english, they will not be bourgeois or petite-bourgeois, & they will come from the most oppressed parts of western empire. in many cases they will know quite well the tension and conflict within their leadership, between the laity and the clergy, between rome and the leaders of their country's council of bishops, and so on. so try not to tail the masses mmkay?
cars posted:yeah you do, don't play dumb. take a random fucking sample of catholics. most of them will not be white, they will not speak english, they will not be bourgeois or petite-bourgeois, & they will come from the most oppressed parts of western empire. in many cases they will know quite well the tension and conflict within their leadership, between the laity and the clergy, between rome and the leaders of their country's council of bishops, and so on. so try not to tail the masses mmkay?
are you suggesting that catholic missionaries are not more or less explicitly in the most economically exploited areas of the world to try to redirect frustration against globalized capital and to blunt the radical secular socialist movements that were gaining strength in the areas that are now increasingly catholic? just because this doesn't work perfectly doesnt make it not part of plan
cars posted:i officially renounce catholicism and am an atheist now to avoid this terrible impending thread
The plot thickens...
cars posted:pope francis says that marxism is wrong but he's known many good people who were marxists so he's not offended to be called a marxist when he rakes capitalism over the coals, nor will he stop doing it. the leader of the u.s. democratic party responds to the same accusation by red baiting the left of his own party and refusing to acknowledge that he ever associated with marxists. to have what francis said come out of the mouth of an argentinian jesuit is probably some of the best p.r. that's happened for communism on the world stage in years, like drake said to macklemore, just take your W
obviously you strongly identify with the hierarchy despite your protestations, or else why do you care about the flavor their opportunism takes? right now you're telling me to be happy about an extremely popular public figure, chosen by an institution (specifically the college of cardinals) that is historically anticommunist (even suppressing liberation theology!) and not to see this as a cynical ploy to gain legitimacy?
HenryKrinkle posted:ffs, of course by private property i meant private ownership of the means of production, not personal possessions.
No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life. In short, "as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good." When "private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another," it is for the public authorities "to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups."
If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation....
Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. Organized programs are necessary for "directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating" (35) the work of individuals and intermediary organizations....It is for the public authorities to establish and lay down the desired goals, the plans to be followed, and the methods to be used in fulfilling them; and it is also their task to stimulate the efforts of those involved in this common activity.
All the end of the day, despite coming from different directions, neither Rome nor Lenin have a very 'ideological' position, as respectable columnists would say, on the issue of private property.
cars posted:pope francis says that marxism is wrong but he's known many good people who were marxists so he's not offended to be called a marxist when he rakes capitalism over the coals, nor will he stop doing it. (...) to have what francis said come out of the mouth of an argentinian jesuit is probably some of the best p.r. that's happened for communism on the world stage in years
the people
united
will wait for another encyclical that says the truth is in the middle
c_man posted:wouldn't it be more accurate to say that 19th century communism and anarchism developed the goals that 20th century communists wanted to struggle for?
What does the 'Daddy and Mommy of them all' have to say about this?
it is not the idea but only from its external manifestation which can serve as
the starting-point. A critique of this kind will confine itself to the confrontation and comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another fact. The only things of importance for this inquiry are that the facts be investigated as accurately as possible, and that they actually form different aspects of development vis each other. But most important of all is the precise analysis of the series of successions, of the sequences and links within which the different stages of development present them.
If one wishes to understand a spirit, then one must not abstract it from the body that belongs to it. As little as the body is the decayed manifestation of the spirit, as little as that is the historical community which does not fits its classical records to be judged without further ado as decay, as an 'almagam'; perhaps it is, on the contrary, the necessary and, in a certain sense, even the originally ‘intended’ correction of those origins. An adult may long all his life for the purity of childhood, but he is by no means the decayed manifestation of the child because of this. Quite on the contrary, one may perhaps even recognize the traits of the child in their full significance, only if one tries to fathom them in retrospect from the known face of the man.
From Apologetic Thinking by Franz Rosenweig
cars posted:there is a reason that liberation theology exists, there's a history behind it, there's a reason it's been opposed by the snakes in rome, and it is at best myopic, at worst imperialist, to compare the church to a bourgeois political party from the center of empire
Edited by Flying_horse_in_saudi_arabia ()
c_man posted:obviously you strongly identify with the hierarchy despite your protestations,
no i don't but maybe if you squeeze your fists really hard it will happen for you
HenryKrinkle posted:the people
united
will wait for another encyclical that says the truth is in the middle
sounds like a terrible plan m8, i wouldn't recommend that
cars posted:HenryKrinkle posted:the people
united
will wait for another encyclical that says the truth is in the middlesounds like a terrible plan m8, i wouldn't recommend that
Instead: Long live the "Awful, never-dying duel"
i guess i just see Pope Francis as a re-branding operation and it really isn't worth debating.
Edited by walkinginonit ()
swampman posted:Are there any benefits that come with being Catholic?
"A certain confidence and detachment" (de Lubac) which are the visible signs of both a delectatio victrix and of the desolation of one who has outlived so many of her children.
Edited by RedMaistre ()
President Evo Morales has given Pope Francis some politically loaded presents during the traditional exchange of gifts between heads of state.
Chief among them: A crucifix carved into a wooden hammer and sickle, the Communist symbol uniting labor and peasants. The image also appears on a medallion Morales gave to Francis that he wore around his neck.
Another politically charged gift: A copy of “The Book of the Sea,” which is about the loss of Bolivia’s access to the sea during the War of the Pacific with Chile in 1879-83. Bolivia took its bid to renegotiate access to the Pacific to the International Court of Justice in 2013, while Chile has argued the court has no jurisdiction because Bolivia’s borders were defined by a 1904 treaty. The court is expected to rule by the end of the year if it has competence to decide the case.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/the-latest-marales-has-politically-charged-gifts-for-pope/2015/07/08/8709655e-25d1-11e5-b621-b55e495e9b78_story.html
swampman posted:Are there any benefits that come with being Catholic?
* cool hats
* get to call soccer "football", but never "footie"
* lose your virginity at 12 (boys only)
ilmdge posted:i am legit disappointed Joel was on here and didnt comment
I'm sorry, I was very busy today and was just taking a short break to read, not long enough to actually write something thoughtful.
I think part of the problem is I don't really expect to convince a lot of people to change their minds. People want to attack the Church, using mostly the same arguments we've heard many times, about contraception in Africa, or the abuse scandal, or abortion rights, or the Nazis. I could address any of them in particular, if you want, and maybe I will in subsequent posts.
But all of this is coming in response to the ruling on same-sex marriage, which I assume that everyone here supports. I honestly wonder if you don't think same-sex marriage should be legalized. I am myself a bit conflicted on it (with my libertarian and patriotic side), and cars has taken kind of an anti-Church slant in this thread, and getfiscal is ambivalent when it comes to the Church, so if I were to argue the Church's position here I feel like I might be doing it solo.
To top it all off, this is a forum which is mostly about Communism, which is a historical enemy of the Church. I think there's always been kind of an understanding here that when push comes to shove, on this forum, the Church serves at the pleasure of Communism.
I will say this however. This forum loves Stalin, and Stalin was no friend to the homosexuals. While Lenin de-criminalized homosexuality, Stalin re-criminalized it, and people who were convicted of it were sent to the gulag for five years. This policy of opposition remained for the rest of the Soviet Union.
So for a forum that loves the USSR, if you want to attack the Church for its antiquated views on LGBT issues, I ask the reader how they reconcile that with their support of Stalin. Or Engels, who I guess opposed homosexuality as well. Or, for that matter, defense of radical Islam, which routinely murders homosexuals. Do you think that Stalin simply made a mistake and that if he was exposed to the Internet and media we here in America have been over the last fifteen years, his views would have similarly changed radically? Or would he, like Putin, the Russian Orthodox Christian, reject it as Western deviance and cultural imperialism? I think there is a case to be made that due to Lenin's stance, it is M-L orthodoxy to support LGBT rights, but it would still require calling Stalin, and various other Communist leaders incorrect on this issue.
Another thing to point out. The Church is unlikely to change its stance on this, or any other controversial doctrine that goes back to the beginning of Christianity. If it does we can be assured that the Church has been corrupted totally by modernism. But even Francis has been a loud proponent of traditional ideas regarding marriage. Personally, I prefer the real teachings, the history of them, and enjoy contemplating them, even if I am conflicted by them. I honestly think part of being Christian in any sense, unless you choose to belong to an extremely modernist Protestant branch like the Episcopalians, is that you will be routinely insulted by modern, secular, liberal society. It just comes with the territory. But on the plus side, you get to commune with Christ. You get to confess your sins and improve yourself according to traditional values. You get the sense of Christian community. And you have the hope of going to Heaven forever instead of staying up all night staring into the abyss. So personally, I think it's worth it.
Given the feelings of most people here about mainstream liberalism and its relationship to capitalism, I think that's why people here are generally sympathetic to traditional Christianity and other "alternative" ideologies, since the primary concerns of this forum are economy and imperialism, which the Church is on the right side of.
cars posted:if anyone thinks that catholics are required to surrender their moral authority to the pope, consider that at one point, there were three of them at once
good point. I mean, if anyone is categorically incapable of surrendering their moral authority to some lofty triumverate of holy powers, its the Catholics
The USA is an imperialist power on the decline. It is being attacked by rising revolutionary movements throughout the world and within the USA itself and it is facing increased competition from other imperialist powers. To maintain its wealth and power the ruling class is forced to increase its oppression and exploitation at home. Although this oppression hits hardest on Third World and working class people, it is felt by almost everybody, including large sections of the petty bourgeoisie. The alienation that people living in capitalist society already feel is greatly intensified. The ruling class attempts to hold back the advancing revolutionary movement by increasing the contradictions between white and Third World workers, between the working class and the petty bourgeoisie, between men and women.
Homosexuality is a response – consciously or not – to a male supremacist society. But because it is a response to oppressive institutions ’and oppressive relationships it is not necessarily a progressive response or one that challenges the power of the monopoly capitalist. We see that the pressures of capitalist society on each individual are tremendous. The difficulty we have in all our relationships, the lack of fulfillment in our daily lives is a source of anxiety and personal suffering. As our relationships become unstable, people – particularly the petty bourgeoisie, which has more leisure time – scramble about in a desperate attempt to find some meaning in their lives. Today people are grasping at all kinds of straws, at exotic religious sects, mysticism, drugs, pornography, promiscuity, sex orgies, trotskyism, etc. People move to rural communes because they feel totally alienated from capitalist society, especially in decaying urban centers. We can understand where such a response comes from, but we don’t therefore call it progressive. A response, a movement, a struggle is progressive if it moves the struggle of the working class forward; if it doesn’t, it is not progressive.
Homosexuality is an individual response to male supremacy and male chauvinism; it is a response which turns its back to the struggle between men and women. We think that Lesbianism is more understandable as an escape from male chauvinism; male homosexuality reinforces male chauvinism in its refusal to deal with relationships with women. Both forms of homosexuality, however, are premised upon the unwillingness to struggle with the opposite sex in very important relationships.
It is important to deal concretely with homosexual relationships as they exist in our society today. Many people, especially women, have become homosexuals as a matter of choice, usually after some involvement in the women’s movement. These are women who said they couldn’t or wouldn’t deal with men in their personal relationships. Such a choice is clearly individualist; it says: I have a right to relate the way I want to, I can do what I want with my body. There are many people who become homosexual out of inclination, or for a thousand other reasons which we can call more or less unconscious. Objectively, however, there are no real differences between the two cases, although the subjective attitudes of the people involved might be different. In both cases people are in relationships which necessarily place them outside of the mainstream of our society and thus puts enormous strains upon the relationships, strains over and above those which exist in heterosexual relationships, which are by no means ideal. Because of such strains, homosexual relationships are rarely long-lasting. The relationships that are principled require much more cultivation, much more time and energy–in short, much more self-indulgence. This is not meant to put down such relationships as abnormal or immoral. It is simply a recognition of the social context in which homosexual relationships must exist. As materialists, we do not deal with anything in the abstract, we don’t deal with homosexuality as it might exist in some future society where people live without sexual or other inhibitions. We don’t make reference to some so-called “natural” state. As a rule homosexual relationships in our society are extremely difficult, require a lot of time to make work, if they work at all. They involve a great deal more cultivation than do heterosexual relationships.
Based on the above considerations we see that homosexuals are forced to live on the periphery of society (insofar as their relationships are subject to public abuse), and therefore such relationships can be only individual solutions to the contradictions of imperialism, much in the same way as going to live on a commune is an individual response to alienation or in the same way as embracing a religion is an individual solution. Because people who make such a choice are ostracized is unfortunate, but again it is not a sign of being progressive. The thing that makes it individual – and not progressive – is not that it is done alone (communes can involve a lot of people), but that it does not engage masses of people in struggle, it doesn’t organize or set the basis for organizing masses of people to fight around their needs.
In posing an individual solution to the contradictions of monopoly capitalism, homosexuality is an ideology of the petty bourgeoisie, and must be clearly distinguished from proletarian ideology. The ideology of the working class is based on the knowledge that the only way to resolve the contradictions of capitalism is through mass struggle with each other and against our common oppressors. To say that homosexuality is based on petty bourgeois ideology is not to cast aspersions on homosexuals, any more than calling most students petty bourgeois is to put them down. As Chairman Mao says: “In class society everyone lives as a member of a particular class, and every kind of thinking, without exception, is stamped with the brand of a class.”
To say that homosexuality is stamped with the brand of the petty bourgeoisie should not imply that gay people cannot be and aren’t strong fighters against imperialism. But we should be clear that it is not the homosexuality of gay people which makes them into anti-imperialist fighters. It is quite possible that many gay people began to recognize the nature of imperialism as a system because of particular attacks on their democratic rights. There is, however, often a difference between the way in which people come to recognize the beast and the weapons they use in fighting it. Gay people can be anti-imperialists, because they can see imperialism as the enemy and they can understand and take up the main spearheads of struggle against imperialism.
While gay people can be anti-imperialists we feel that they cannot be Communists. To be a Communist, we must accept and welcome struggle in all facets of our lives, personal as well as political. We cannot struggle with male supremacy in the factory and not struggle at home. We feel that the best way to struggle out such contradictions in our personal lives is in stable monogamous relationships between men and women based on mutual love and respect. Because homosexuals do not carry the struggle between men and women into their most intimate relationships they are not prepared, in principle, for the arduous task of class transformation.
As Communists we have chosen to put class struggle and the revolutionary movement of the working class and all oppressed people into the forefront of our lives. It is a serious task. “A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture.” Because homosexual relationships require so much time we have found that homosexuals have had an extremely difficult time meeting the strenuous requirements of a communist organization and they have often put unnecessary burdens on their comrades.
Because we put class struggle first, we are opposed to all relationships which are seen by the people in them as the main source of their well-being or as a source of personal salvation. It is extremely difficult to have totally fulfilling relationships in this society and any attempt to have one must be a full-time job. As things exist now, given the prevalent conditions of relationships under capitalism, we see that monogamous heterosexual relationships are by far the most favorable for providing the grounds for struggle, respect, and love. And it is within such relationships that Communists can best devote their lives to the enormous task ahead. It is important for us to deal with the reality that now exists, with the material conditions which exist. Utopian schemes for relationships such as bisexuality will only disrupt our work. We are not dealing with chimeras of the mind but with a powerful enemy. Perhaps in some future society bisexuality will blossom. This is not for us to decide, and we certainly can’t base our lives and the revolutionary movement on such experiments. It is not a change in life style that will overthrow imperialism, but a united front led by the working class fighting in its material interests.
When homosexuality is raised to a principle, when the banner of “gay is good” is raised as a strategy for defeating imperialism then it becomes a reactionary force retarding the struggle of the working class and of the people as a whole. This is born out in both the theory and the practice of the gay liberation movement.
There has been a lot of confusion about the relationships of the struggle of women to the gay liberation movement. Much of this confusion is based on the fact that many sections of the petty bourgeois women’s movement of the sixties concentrated on the psychological aspects of the oppression of women, on the attitude of male chauvinism. Women’s oppression was caused by sexist attitudes, by male chauvinist ideas which placed women (and men) in certain well-defined roles. With such an analysis, parts of the women’s movement began to see that gay people were equally oppressed by sexist attitudes and gay relationships equally distorted by oppressive roles. The oppression of women and gay people was seen as rooted in the same cause: sexism.
What this analysis left out was the primary cause of women’s oppression–that is, the material cause of this oppression. That is why we speak of male supremacy to refer to the institutional forms of oppression, and. male chauvinism as the ideology and psychological attitudes which are used to justify male supremacy. In Marxist terminology they are related as base to superstructure. The oppression of women developed historically out of the division of labor in ancient slave society and continues today with the division of labor in capitalist society. The oppression of women is based primarily on material oppression due to their position in production (reserve labor force, cheap labor, unpaid work in the home) and reproduction (as mothers). Imperialism profits directly from the oppression and exploitation of women. Male supremacy and male chauvinism are mainstays of imperialism. This is not true for gay people. They are not materially oppressed as a group, and the denial of their democratic rights does not secure greater profits for the ruling class.
The confusion of the fight for democratic rights with a liberation struggle is based on an idealistic, metaphysical understanding of oppression. To raise the slogan of “go gay and smash the state” is to lead all people down the road of certain defeat. The gay liberation movement has no class analysis of imperialism, it claims to be above classes, attacking the “deeper” roots of oppression. But there are no “deeper” roots of oppression. The roots of oppression are summed up in the fundamental contradiction in capitalist society, that between the bourgeoisie and the working class. In reality, gay liberation is anti-working class and counterrevolutionary. Its attacks on the family would rob poor and working people of the most viable social unit for their survival and for their revolutionary struggle against the imperialist system. The only real liberation, the only road to real happiness for homosexuals–is to eliminate the reactionary rotting system that drives them to homosexuality; and to build a new society, under the rule of the working class, that promotes class culture and ideology – the principles of equality, cooperation and the dignity of collective labor – in opposition to selfishness, self-indulgence and the decadence of individualism and exploitative relations.
The practice of gay liberation bears out its anti-working class ideology. An example of this is a demonstration called by the National Organization of Women in NYC last August. Although NOW is petty-bourgeois it does have progressive aspects. At this rally Third World Women who had led the struggle of maids at Columbia University against discrimination in hiring and firing were scheduled to speak. Lesbian activists attacked the speakers’ stand and seized the microphone because no Lesbian had been on the program. This destroyed the rally and held back the unity of the women’s movement.
Gay women also played a destructive role in NY in recent planning for a rally around International Women’s Day. All groups present agreed on only raising slogans concerning democratic rights of women such as day-care and free abortion. The fragile unity which existed between the participating groups was destroyed when the gay women refused to take part in any demonstration which didn’t raise “support for gay liberation” as a slogan. Many of the Third World women in the group were dismayed at the blatantly anti-working class and national chauvinist character of the gay group.
We support the democratic rights of gay people under capitalism but we do not feel that the Attica Brigade has to take a stand on this question. Although we support those democratic rights, we do not do so in an abstract way. We oppose the arbitrary use of laws against homosexuality and we oppose bourgeois methods of treating homosexuals as “criminals.” But we do not uphold the so-called general abstract “right to be homosexual”. To make a comparison with religion we support the democratic rights of people to exercise freedom of religion, but we wouldn’t support the right of some Jesus-freak sect to proselytize in working class neighborhoods, but we would support a Black Muslim being brutalized in prison. We support the democratic right of freedom of speech, but we don’t support the racist demagogues.
As Communists, we are always guided by the overwhelming principle: to promote, defend and fight for building the unity of the proletariat and the people in struggle against monopoly capitalist rule; to expose, oppose and struggle against everything that divides, demoralizes and weakens the proletariat and the overall anti-imperialist struggle.
Our position can be summarized in three main points:
(1) Homosexuality in the USA today is an individual response to the intensification of the contradictions brought about by decaying imperialism; in particular it is a response to the contradiction between men and women which is rooted in male supremacist institutions and male chauvinist ideology. Because homosexuality is rooted in individualism it is a feature of petty bourgeois ideology which puts forth the idea that there are individual solutions to social problems.
(2) Because homosexuality is based on petty bourgeois ideology and deals with the contradiction between men and women by turning its back to it, (at least in intimate personal relationships), homosexuals cannot be Communists, that is, belong to communist organizations where people are committed to struggle against all forms of individualism, in all aspects of their lives.
(3) Gay liberation in putting forth gayness as a strategy for revolution in this country is a reactionary ideology and can lead us only down the road of demoralization and defeat.
Agnus_Dei posted:cars has taken kind of an anti-Church slant in this thread,
cars posted:i just don't get why you are demanding that i defend something i oppose, i have written plenty on this very site, stuff i know you have read, about my specific problems with the church hierarchy, specific places and people where they have acted hand in hand with the cia to crush communism and kill innocents, so even if you don't believe i regularly have it out with other catholics over the topic (i do) it doesn't really fly to act like you're carting around a fresh tabula rasa to pull out just for this discussion
Then what are you even doing here? You're acting like some carholic Janus, pontificating about the "proletarian character" of the church from one mouth while freely admitting that the central organization that directs missionary activities as a part of church policy is firmly anticommunist in its goals and declaring yourself totally independent of them from the other. If you don't remember, it was you who jumped back in here after first declaring that you didn't want to participate. You just showed up to explain that there are oh so many people working very hard to reform the institution from within, as though that's supposed to be any less of a fool's errand than going to work for thr IMF because you want enconomic justice for the world's poor. You freely admit that the church hierarchy is constitutively a reactionary institution so why do you even care if there if there are "good people" there? Isn't it more accurate that their church status is at best a moot point and at worst a drawback to affecting social change?
Edited by c_man ()
Agnus_Dei posted:ilmdge posted:i am legit disappointed Joel was on here and didnt comment
The Church is unlikely to change its stance on this, or any other controversial doctrine that goes back to the beginning of Christianity. If it does we can be assured that the Church has been corrupted totally by modernism. But even Francis has been a loud proponent of traditional ideas regarding marriage. Personally, I prefer the real teachings, the history of them, and enjoy contemplating them, even if I am conflicted by them. I honestly think part of being Christian in any sense, unless you choose to belong to an extremely modernist Protestant branch like the Episcopalians, is that you will be routinely insulted by modern, secular, liberal society. It just comes with the territory. But on the plus side, you get to commune with Christ. You get to confess your sins and improve yourself according to traditional values. You get the sense of Christian community. And you have the hope of going to Heaven forever instead of staying up all night staring into the abyss. So personally, I think it's worth it.
We are in agreement on this. HOWEVER, as our co-religionist Portalis put in his excellent Preliminary Address on the First Draft of the Civil Code, I think the principle that "Citizens may profess diverse faiths; but laws must be for everyone" needs to be the basis for public policy. I don’t think there is any other foundation by which we can avoid turning interminable culture wars over sex and consumer choices* into fuel for intractable political conflicts which keep the peoples of the world divided against each other while the global finance monopolies impose on all alike perpetual war, population control, and mass pauperization.
*Not that those wouldn’t, or couldn’t, continue, under a future dispensation, but they would continue as non-antagonistic contradictions.
I think that often *we* speak about the abolition of private property as if what we are talking about does not, in the end, converge with what many would simply say is the “right use” of property. A manner of speaking which makes no sense if we take seriously the notion that the overcoming of capitalism lies within the realities of capitalism itself.
Agnus_Dei posted:the primary concerns of this forum are economy and imperialism, which the Church is on the right side of.
It's a pretty good troll on God's part to make a guy that you don't agree with incapable of being wrong.
