It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.

Karl Marx's 1859 Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

Modern liberalism says that by raising our individual consciousness, we will expand the circle, and that this will not only effectively change society, but that it is the only way to change society.

According to the Census Bureau’s 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States, most college freshmen in 1970 said their primary goal was to develop a meaningful life philosophy.

In 2005, by contrast, most freshmen said their primary goal was to be comfortably rich.

According to the Census Bureau’s 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States, most college freshmen in 1970 said their primary goal was to develop a meaningful life philosophy.

In 2005, by contrast, most freshmen said their primary goal was to be comfortably rich.
Comfortably rich is the larger context, within which one establishes oneself as an "oppositional" figure - RFK jr., Code Pink, Moveon, the Green Party leaders and their "socially responsible investing," the six figure salaried Democratic party consultants and liberal non-profit organization leaders, Ben and Jerry's organization, Ted Turner, Jane Fonda, John Kerry, other millionaire Democratic politicians, and on and on and on.

The ethic of success equals morally righteous and worthy has gotten so bad, that the paragraph I wrote above, had I posted it at DU would lead to accusations that I was "persecuting the rich" or expressing bigotry.

I would bet that in 1960 the answer would have been more like "contribute to making the world better." The popular goal in 1970 of developing a meaningful (and by implication, personal) life philosophy inevitably evolved into "being comfortably rich," since once you start down the path of self-actualization as opposed to service to mankind, it is inevitable in a capitalist free market culture thatyou realize that the path to personal freedom is the pursuit of wealth. We now even have quasi-religions in the New Age realm that are primarily about “visualizing” (personal and material) “abundance” and success as the key to personal spiritual enlightenment. Think “Deepak Chopra ” et al.

We now even have quasi-religions in the New Age realm that are primarily about “visualizing” (personal and material) “abundance” and success as the key to personal spiritual enlightenment. Think “Deepak Chopra ” et al.

Pentacostal/Evangelicals' prosperity doctrines are at least as troubling, arguably far worse. Dr. Chopra does not espouse the amassing of personal wealth; Bob Tilton does.

The new age thing is a convenient frame, but it misses the mark in catching the whole phenomenon.

The new age thing is a convenient frame, but it misses the mark in catching the whole phenomenon.
Oh, yes, agreed. I mention the New Age aspect because that is the part of the phenomenon that has infiltrated the Left.

An overlooked aspect of the Reformation, in my opinion, is the social and political ramifications as opposed to doctrinal amd theological. The Catholics have been steadfast over the centuries with "blessed are the poor" while the Protestants have moved relentlessly toward "God will reward the righteous in the here and now." That then leads to the callous assumption that the poor must not be righteous, and that God is punishing them with deprivation. Protestant prosperity theology is mostly associated with the Right - if we leave out the Afircan American churches when we talk about Christianity, which white Americans almost always do.

Would-be modern critics of Christianity blend the two together, and see prosperity theology, the Right, and the Catholic "blessed are the poor" doctrine as somehow all the same, rather that deeply oppositional to one another, as they most certainly are. Since Protestantism is unsympathetic to the poor, people conflate the two doctrines into one monlithic force and imagine that "blessed are the poor" must mean "so long as they stay poor." Even the most cursory awareness of the actual practices that arise from the two doctrines would disprove the validity of that conflation. But why let reality interfere with a good theory?

Would-be modern critics of Christianity blend the two together, and see prosperity theology, the Right, and the Catholic "blessed are the poor" doctrine as somehow all the same, rather that deeply oppositional to one another, as they most certainly are. Since Protestantism is unsympathetic to the poor, people conflate the two doctrines into one monlithic force and imagine that "blessed are the poor" must mean "so long as they stay poor."

Could we say the same about our understanding of Hamas? Hezbollah?

Each group has a violent faction, but each is also filled with people who work on nothing but peaceful, and purty darn socialistic projects.

Could we say the same about our understanding of Hamas? Hezbollah?
Say what about them?

Could we say the same about our understanding of Hamas? Hezbollah?
Say what about them?

That they're not the same, but rather are often deeply oppositional to one another, as they most certainly are.

_____

If one accepts that nonviolence can be stretched to include the right to self-defense, once-rigid boundaries begin to liquefy...

Sheikh Imad Al-Falouji is a paradox of another kind. A former Palestinian Authority Minister of Information, Al-Falouji lives in the squalid Jabbaliya refugee camp in the northern Gaza Strip. When I interviewed Al-Falouji in Gaza City, he proudly told me that he was one of the founders of Hamas’s Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigade, the wing of Hamas responsible for suicide-bombings and other violent acts. Though he was involved in their work for nine years, he said that he officially parted ways with Hamas in January 1996 over differences in ideology.

One of the reasons Al-Falouji left Hamas was because he holds that targeting civilians in Israel is not justified according to shari’a. “I am against bus bombings and bombings in the markets. We [as Muslims] can only kill those who are trying to kill us.” Al-Falouji argues that he has never changed his position on this matter. Rather, he said, Hamas’s stance is what shifted in 1996, transforming isolated acts of suicide bombing into a regular phenomenon.

When asked whether or not he thinks shari’a validates the killing of Israeli soldiers, Al-Falouji told me that it is permissible to kill soldiers in Israel or Palestine because the IDF, as a military organization, aims to inflict violence on the Palestinian people through specific killings as well as general military occupation. In his view, killing soldiers is an act of self-defense, not an act of self-initiated violence. Further, he claims that it is warranted to kill Jewish Israeli civilians living in Gaza because they are living on “stolen land.” This position, he said, is supported by International Law. “The position of the United Nations supports me…. People have the basic right to defend themselves or their own property.”
http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/tik0507/ ... 9124542627 (http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/tik0507/article.2005-06-13.9124542627)

It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.

Karl Marx's 1859 Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

I think the most powerful and realistic outcome of creating this site is to generate messages that we activists can use in the real world. The content resources generated as part of that message making process then can be called upon by members and the public alike.

The message making process comes out of deliberation. Deliberation comes out of a process secondary to open discussion and designed to keep the discussion civil and constructive by taking disputes into another arena, a resolution process space rather than the destructive and unproductive 'flame room' many discussion sites fill this existential void in effective discourse with.

To truly get anything done in the near term real world, we must recognize and try to craft our messages for and at the intersection of racial, labor, and single-issue efforts. That means methodically making success of our disagreements, even as we understand consensus is seldom possible.

I don't understand why you would think that consciousness has changed with the rise of Liberia.

Next, you'll be blaming Marcus Garvey...

http://www.bernardhoyes.com/images/bh-marcus-garvey.jpg

(On edit: This is a joke, for any who missed it. The software is cutting off the title line)...

.

The new age thing is a convenient frame, but it misses the mark in catching the whole phenomenon.
Oh, yes, agreed. I mention the New Age aspect because that is the part of the phenomenon that has infiltrated the Left.

An overlooked aspect of the Reformation, in my opinion, is the social and political ramifications as opposed to doctrinal amd theological. The Catholics have been steadfast over the centuries with "blessed are the poor" while the Protestants have moved relentlessly toward "God will reward the righteous in the here and now." That then leads to the callous assumption that the poor must not be righteous, and that God is punishing them with deprivation. Protestant prosperity theology is mostly associated with the Right - if we leave out the Afircan American churches when we talk about Christianity, which white Americans almost always do.

Would-be modern critics of Christianity blend the two together, and see prosperity theology, the Right, and the Catholic "blessed are the poor" doctrine as somehow all the same, rather that deeply oppositional to one another, as they most certainly are. Since Protestantism is unsympathetic to the poor, people conflate the two doctrines into one monlithic force and imagine that "blessed are the poor" must mean "so long as they stay poor." Even the most cursory awareness of the actual practices that arise from the two doctrines would disprove the validity of that conflation. But why let reality interfere with a good theory?

This is not entirely fair to the Protestant Churches. The Black Churches went their own way (and not by choice). The "white" churches we see today, though, are a thoroughly purged and nastified variation on post-Vietnam American Protestantism. Remember the battles over the World Council of Churches? Remember the decade long fight over the National Baptist Convention, amon others? In fact, the split is as real inside Protestantism as it is inside Catholicism, and arguably, the Reformation roots of most Protestant sects give support to many egalitarian thoughts (and from a historical standpoint, also to revolutionary ones). Yes, the Franciscans were somethin' "else", but there were Benedictines, and Jesuits, and many others, in direct opposition. "Liberation Theology", considered as a generic, was Catholic in Latin America, Protestant in Africa, and arguably, Islamic in Lebanon.

No big point, but, organized religions have in common with most trans-class organizations, the tendency to throw off competing ruling class, worthless liberal, radical liberal, and plebian viewpoints, among others.

This is not entirely fair to the Protestant Churches. The Black Churches went their own way (and not by choice). The "white" churches we see today, though, are a thoroughly purged and nastified variation on post-Vietnam American Protestantism. Remember the battles over the World Council of Churches? Remember the decade long fight over the National Baptist Convention, amon others? In fact, the split is as real inside Protestantism as it is inside Catholicism, and arguably, the Reformation roots of most Protestant sects give support to many egalitarian thoughts (and from a historical standpoint, also to revolutionary ones). Yes, the Franciscans were somethin' "else", but there were Benedictines, and Jesuits, and many others, in direct opposition. "Liberation Theology", considered as a generic, was Catholic in Latin America, Protestant in Africa, and arguably, Islamic in Lebanon.

No big point, but, organized religions have in common with most trans-class organizations, the tendency to throw off competing ruling class, worthless liberal, radical liberal, and plebian viewpoints, among others.
Sure. I think the generalization is still valuable. I can't remember the name of the theologian at the time of the Reformation who said that the logical and eventual outcome of Luther's doctrine would be a "church of one." If salvation came from faith alone, and no intermediaries were to be respected or permitted so that faith was defined and determined by each individual, and salvation depended upon no agreed upon objective evidence, it would be inevitable that the church would fracture into more and more sects until each person had their own religion, their own truth, and each "church" would have one member.

The rate of fracturing has been steadily increasing in Protestantism, and we now have thousands and thousands of separate churches wuth new ones springing up daily. That stands in contrast to the Catholic church.

Maybe the relative coherence and stability in the Black Protestant churches in America has more to do with social factors than theological ones?