the class struggle for a more "mystic" (for lack of a better word) version of Marxism or socialism? Now I realize this might be blasphemy for both sides of this question, but I think that we miss a BIG chance, especially in the United States, not to at least CONSIDER framing the struggle in something other than atheistic terms.

I remember while growing up in the South in the 50s and 60s how the MOST damning agrument AGAINST Marxism for MOST of the people I knew, INCLUDING the working class of which my family were members, was it's atheistic slant. "Godless Communists" was the anticommunist's biggest argument AGAINST social and economic justice. And it resonated WITHIN the majority of the working class.

Yes I know that Marx did say that "Religion was the opiate of the people" and in his context it was (pardon the phrase) God's own Truth, BUT he said NOTHING about spirituality as far as I can tell. The only place spitituality was even considered in the mid 1800s was within the confines of the religions of the time, so I'm SURE he considered religion and spirituality as one and the same, but that isn't true anymore. More people consider themselves "spiritual" rather than religious nowdays. This leads me to conclusion that we miss out if we don't consider this in our education efforts.

Think of this. ALL global religions, including Christianity, have a core set of beliefs THAT ARE ANTI CAPITALISTIC. We need to use this.

:) does it really seem necessary? I guess I'm curious how this has been dealt with historically in other countries.

I remember in "Capitalism A Love Story" there was a long section on the Catholic priests who were anti-capitalistic. I grew up Catholic in a very different environment, and the priests were very anti-communist and pro-free trade. I grew up in the 80's though, and it seemed like all the Catholics I knew were very rah-rah pro-Reagan.

For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'...

and the Lord replied 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

Politics has nothing to do with spirituality or any set of myths anyone might choose to believe in. Politics is about power and resources and how those things are distributed. We aught never to stray from material realism in our approach to politics and working class empowerment.
I used to think that working class folks were less than receptive to socialist ideas, but I have discovered that the majority of working class people I know are more than receptive, we need to focus on discussing things honestly, sticking to what we know to be real, and paying attention to what is being said to us. As one old guy on here has said, "Talk, don't bullshit!" We have to deal in the real and leave spirituality to the hucksters.

Keep talking, these are all areas where we can use focus. :hi:

as we have to fight the "godless Communist" label we don't make the kinds of inroads into the ACTUAL working class that we need to make in order to educate, then organize, then fight the capitalists' propaganda. Remember MOST Americans believe in some sort of spirituality, whether it be religious or other. If we spend all of our time arguing ABOUT the relative merits of materialistic socialism/Marxism against spiritualism, then we don't get to argue as much about the EFFECTS on the workers of capitalist exploitation.

As to the Catholics, the biggest thing I remember about the Catholic religion (I wasn't raised Catholic, but there were a LOT of Catholics where I grew up) RE: socialism, was the "Liberation Theology" of Latin America in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. It seemed to be pretty radically anti capitalist and, as I recall, the Vatican slapped it down pretty good at one time. It sounded like a good approach to me.

Using Jesus' OWN proported words in an argument or an attempt to educate. It's EVERYWHERE in all religions and it's a tool that OUGHT to be used IMO. Hell, I saw on DU where the Dalai Lama even claimed to be a Marxist. In the West the worst that would happen would be that somebody uses the old saw about even the Devil being able to quote Scripture.

It should be easy to defuse the "Godless Communist" argument by using Jesus' own words. Get past this one stumbling block in the average person's mind and converting folks to anticapitalism would be easier.

I can appreciate what you're saying about "Talk, don't bullshit", but part of talking IMO is being able to overcome the propaganda that socialism has been subject to for the last 150 years or so. And the "Godless Communist" label is one that is, in my experience, the hardest to overcome with average, relatively uneducated people. With 90+% of the United States professing some sort of belief in the spiritual side of life, it seems like it would be foolish just to ignore that side of people and focus ONLY on materialism when religion's own WORDS can be used to SUPPORT socialism.

In fact, the words of the world's religions, in general, tend to support a more socialistic view of the world and politics than a capitalistic one. If the tool is there, shouldn't it be used?

Please be more specific. Religion can be politically helpful or harmful, like anything else it depends on the situation.

kind of "tool", but if it were, for what would it be "used"? Fooling folks or trying to "sell" them on something is not what we should be about, I think. Maybe you could explain that part some? Are you talking about some kind of "re-branding"?

Like Dhal, I think that sounds like an attempt to rebrand socialism. I think most workers know what the effects of exploitation are. They might not be aware that there is a historical and scientific explanation for why this happens under capitalism. I can't really see where a spiritual tie would bridge that gap.

If we are concerned with religious people feeling afraid that socialism would deny them their faith, I guess that was where I was going with how that was dealt with in other countries. Was that a big concern in times of revolution? I've been reading about the Paris Commune this month, and (paraphrasing) when push came to shove, the workers organized to survive. There wasn't really any need to sell the workers on any programme. The people who kicked up a fuss and objection to socialism were those with a stake in the status quo (or who thought they had a stake...).

Anything we do or say is going to be labeled socialist no matter what. That horse is already out of the barn. The objections are going to come in a legion of forms depending on what people think they are still getting out of capitalism. I am mostly surrounded by libs and middle class Californians who are not necessarily religious at all. They argue the most strenuously *for* capitalism. Frankly, talking to workers who just have some spiritual objections sounds like a nice change of pace. Wanna trade? :D (I kid).

On the other hand, I can't see any harm in having some analogies handy that resonate with potentially receptive listeners. I just don't think we should try to reinvent the wheel to try to "get" people. (Sorry to ramble a bit).

It isn't necessarily anti-scientific, even if it is basically idealistic, and in practice religious social movements couldn't reject materialism unless actually wanted to fail.

"Spirituality" on the other hand is generally decadent and anti-scientific and openly anti-materialist.

Maybe religion could be useful to sell Socialism or maybe not, but Socialism is not a product to be marketed and sold, so it doesn't matter hat would or wouldn't be useful for selling it. Also, the word is not a brand name in need of burnishing or re-purposing.

I think you and I debated this at DU if I remember.

I find much less resistance from average relatively uneducated people than I do from upscale progressives and liberals.

There is no place for "spirituality" of any kind.

There are many attempts to accommodate materialist politics with religious artifacts but certainly not at a time when the materialist doctrine has largely been lost and is in the process of being reborn. The opposite is true in the present era: the rebirth of materialism without "commie talk" is itself a significant step forward.

Neither does what "the workers believe" have anything to do with it, whether such an assertion is true or not. What workers "believe" includes notions as crazy as those that the U.S. is a "democracy", that everyone can become rich here and that working people have a direct stake in the national interest - i.e. imperialism.

Can't get anywhere at all from there. Of course, historical materialism says that those ideas can change - and change rapidly - when their underlying basis changes.

That's why ya gotta have it; our argument completes the circle...

Otherwise we are wasting our time.

http://www.ncbusinesslitigationreport.com/uploads/image/friday.jpg
Just the Facts, ma'am.

There is great wisdom in that line. As long as we work with what is we can leave the speculation and folderol to others, it is not needed nor wanted, would confuse and dilute what we are doing. Now if persons can relate 'our' analysis to their 'beliefs', well and good, but that river flows in one direction only.

or was it ordained, ;)

someone just sent me this in my email, just too related/pertinent? not to share, and the name invoked is beautiful, dontcha think!!: ;D

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/12854

Submitted by Symon Hill on 15 August 2010 - 7:17pm www.ekklesia.co.uk
The Magnificat, and other revolutionary sentiments
For centuries, the tendency of Christian churches to uphold the political and economic order has been threatened by the socially radical nature of Jesus' teachings and much of the Bible. Nothing makes this more obvious than the Magnificat.

The Magnificat, also known as the Song of Mary, was a prayer of early Christians. The writer of Luke's Gospel puts the words into the mouth of Jesus' mother Mary, whose feast day is celebrated today (15 August).

It's surely one of the most revolutionary passages in the whole Bible, praising God who has “brought down the powerful from their thrones and lifted up the lowly” (it can be found at Luke 1,46-55).

Sadly, I've no doubt that many churches read or sang this passage today with no regard to the radical nature of a prayer in which the hungry are filled with “good things” and the rich are sent away empty.

I was therefore delighted to hear a sermon by Huge Valentine at St James' Church, Piccadilly, in which he focused on the utterly shocking nature of the Magnificat and linked it to modern disputes about benefits, taxation and economic inequality.

The sermon was followed by a hymn by Fred Kaan, who died last year. It is based on the Magnificat and set to the tune of The Red Flag.*** I reproduce it here for anyone keen on a revolutionary way of celebrating the Feast of Mary.

Sing we a song of high revolt;
Make great the Lord, his name exalt:
Sing we the song that Mary sang
Of God at war with human wrong.
Sing we of him who deeply cares
And still with us our burden bears;
He, who with strength the proud disowns,
Brings down the mighty from their thrones.
By him the poor are lifted up:
He satisfies with bread and cup
The hungry folk of many lands;
The rich are left with empty hands.
He calls us to revolt and fight
With him for what is just and right
To sing and live Magnificat
In crowded street and council flat.



***On search the melody is also the same as Oh Christmas Tree...

"Now if persons can relate 'our' analysis to their 'beliefs', well and good, but that river flows in one direction only."

this is great.

This was Marx's criticism of the early socialists. (Not to say his overall attitude was critical, but this was the separation that took him from socialism which rested on sentiment and a desire for egalitarianism to communism which delved into the underlying basis and relationships that formed society)

Marx actually wrote quite a bit on religion (as did Engels incidentally) well beyond simply saying "That religion is the heart of the world proves that the world has no heart"

Both Descarte's "de omnibus dubitandum" (roughly = question everything) that Marx approriated and his famous desire for "ruthless criticism of everything existing" also apply here as calls to arms against superstition and irrationality.

Not to mention that his early wranglings with Hegel basically centered around the philosophical drive to always revert to the Absolute (which is certainly God when all the veneers are pared away). Feuerbach -- who was quite influential during Marx's formative academic years -- made a big breakthrough on this question by recognizing that an "anthropocentric" (if we must) deity is not merely a quirk or curiousity but actually rooted in the very creation of "God" in the first place.

If you like I'll lay some of the heavier philosophical aspects of this on you (or get Anax to, he knows it better than I do) but the point is that NO, Marx was not going to go for spirituality.

"Mystics" are always insane -- maybe not maniacally so but they are always wanting to sail on the seas of abstraction -- and our worldview -- the materialist world view -- is precisely the opposite.

In a sense, it comes down to slapping us in the face and reminding us that we're living in the real world. Its sort of like you can book as many flights of imagination as you want, but Steve Slater is always the flight attendant.

because that would be dishonest AND eventually found out. It would just be AN approach for some people (a lot of people?) in order to actually educate them on what's going on using their OWN religious/spiritual beliefs as a basis for that education.

I think about this stuff probably based on my own experiences growing up where I did, when I did. It was tiring to point out to people how much better off they would be under a socialistic system then lose them to "Communists don't believe in God and I do."

although I wouldn't think so. Once again, this is not about "branding" so much as defusing a capitalist talking point that I've PERSONALLY ran into a lot in my life. Maybe I'm talking about framing. I've tried to finesse it, but that's not only somewhat dishonest, but also ineffective. It just seems a shame to leave a debunking tool on the table just because it doesn't fit with the understanding of an ideology.

One of the problems WITH religions is that too many are dogmatic. Sometimes that goes for politics and economics too.

No more time for the computer right now.

social conditions change and, in turn, the consciousness of people change - not the other way around. We need to be ready, we need to know what the hell is going on, why it is going on, and what to do when the time comes. We can't change people - as TA says, "we don't want to change people". The social conditions are changing rapidly, capitalism is going through a death dance and more and more people are going to become radicalized by the situations and circumstances that they, themselves, their families and they communities are living through. We need to be able to deal with these things as they develop and hit the ground running. We don't need to try and convert anyone or recruit anyone or anything like that - we got nothing to convert to and nothing to recruit for. The radicalization of the working class is coming, but it ain't here yet and we can't make it happen; it will happen and we need to be ready...

It isn't "political" or "economic" "dogma" that is being dealt with here, it is a basic misunderstanding of what politics is. Politics ain't about joining a club or being a member of anything, it isn't about polling - it is about power and resources and their distribution. The radicalization of the working class will come, but we can't make it come - we'll just be ready when it happens. And when it does, "spiritual issues" won't be a very high priority...

Not sure what you are running in to. I spend a lot of time around religious people, and have spent a lot of time playing in churches including many in the South.

There are a lot of ways that religion is politicized. If religion comes up in a political discussion I talk politics. If politics comes up in a religious discussion I talk religion. Since any reactionary points of view are so easily countered in either context, there really isn't a problem. Isn't that easily enough handled by "render onto Caesar...?"

The interesting thing about this is that what we are really talking about here is social relations, not politics or religion. As far as I am concerned, the burden of proof is always on the person expressing reactionary points of view. Since I am not selling anything, nor seeking a win, nor seeking converts, that is easy to do. But, it is ingrained in the way we interact socially, that we are to be selling things or preaching about things as the only possible social type of social interaction to get anything accomplished. Then we are to think that the validity of an idea is dependent upon it being sold, or dependent upon how many buy it (or how much money goes into the collection plate, or how many attendees heed the call and come to Jesus.)

We ought to be challenging the social conventions, not trying to work within them. We ought not be presenting any of our ideas in such a way this would be a problem. We ought never be in the weak position of the seller or evangelist.

I had had too long a time with liberals and progressives, pretending to be "leftists", it had skewed my perceptions. But I persisted and refused to take the criticism as personal and negative - rather as political and positive. i still disagree with some folks some times, I even get a little pissed some times (heh, heh), but this has been hugely beneficial and I learn something here almost every day...

stances, etc., are some of the most advantageous things you can get on this site - one of the main reasons I like coming here is taking the ideas apart and looking at them hard and without feelings. A lot of the time I only read what the others write and think. This is a huge benefit to everyone here. None of this is personal; it is political and social, historical and economical. A lot of times any of us can get into manners of thought and begin looking at things from viewpoints that are not valid. When this happens we have to be ruthless and hammer stuff home (well, not The Kid - he's just too damned nice :) ) - again, not personal, but educational...

"You're just too nice!!" they say

This kinda tag can stick to a person - and then it ain't funny!

I usta be a regular Pollyanna, but after a few decapitations I saw the advantage of being more forthright..

I've been a part of message boards for more than a decade now and I understand how things go. And I don't care if people don't agree with me on things, that's just message board shit. :) Acutally I don't EXPECT people to agree with me. When they do it's a pleasant surprise.

Mostly I'm just a responder, but sometimes if there's something that's bothering me or if I'm curious about other people's attitudes about a particular subject that I don't see discussed, then I'll put out an OP. This was one such subject that I've pondered off and on for me a long time. And since THIS is the MOST leftist board I've ever been a part of (I could tell that on first read :), it was a good place to ask. I not only expect to learn, I WANT to learn. I don't know if it will change my mind or not, but it's DEFINITELY good for refining my thinking.

In short, I appreciate ALL feedback, positive and negative. And yeah, I'm WAY too nice a guy too. :)

It's been a real busy week for me, so bear with me if it takes a while to respond.

I use spirituality as a catch-all for anything that's not dogmatic Religion (with a capital R). Spitituality can be banal and shallow or it can be Buddha. In my experience, the more banal the spirituality (or the Religion), the more the argument of "Godless Communist" is used.

Dogmatic Religions are top down one way or another and either by chance or design (mostly by design I believe) they're used to distract people from seeing they are being exploited by the annointed "rulers" whether those rulers be church officials or moneyed interests or both. You have to get away from religious dogma to be politically socialist, IMO, but you don't really have to get away from spirituality.

It kind of amazed me that the Dalai Lama claimed to be a Marxist, but then Buddhism is not a dogmatic religion. Hell, a lot of people don't even consider it a religion, so I'm not so sure I should have been that surprised.

is to show people that they can be anticapitalist WITHOUT giving up their total belief system. That in actuality, they might be CLOSER to their beliefs by actually BEING anticapitalist than supporting a system that is based SOLELY on greed.

As I said in another post, I don't think that you could be dogmatically Religious and be anticapitalist, but then I don't think you have to be an athiest either.

In the sense of the old saw about not being any atheists in foxholes. :)

I don't really have much of an argument with anything you've said, I would just add that it IS about showing that, when the radicalization of workers DOES come about, it doesn't go in the NATIONAL Socialist direction just because of a misunderstanding about God.

would of necessity have to accept materialism (or at least the material world) because a social movement is by definition trying to better people in the here and now.

It depends on the definition of spirituality that you use. Obviously a LOT of it IS decadent, anti scientific and anti materialist and banal. I look at spirituality as experiential based non materiality, but not necessarily TOTALLY non materialist. If your spirituality WERE totally non materialist then you wouldn't believe in any social movement anyway, so you wouldn't be a candidate for any sort of radicalization in the here and now because the here and now doesn't matter to you.

Maybe non dogmatic would be better than spirituality.

to better people", period. The only "movement i would be a part of would be working for Working Class power - nothing else. i don't want to enlighten anyone, help them connect to their spiritual roots or any kind of bullshit like that.

All spirituality is "decadent, anti scientific and anti materialist", because it is personal and non-social. You cannot "socialize" spirituality without it becoming reactionary. When it becomes social, it is an impediment, at best.

Buddha is just as much myth and piss-water as anything a Baptist preacher would spew. The Dalai Lama is also a big, big Ass-Hole...

Here's a little bit on the Dalai fuckhead- http://populistindependent.virtual.vps-host.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=386&hilit=dali+lama

If someone wants to believe in myths then let 'em. The working class will become radicalized when they become radicalized - their religions won't matter.

Is that about the size of it? You are not making a lot of sense here.

of epic proportion.

Shall I expand on this point?

http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?c=5&t=1&id=11057

Dalai Lama says Afghanistan war 'mature'

The Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, has said that the United States bombing campaign against Afghanistan represents a more mature approach than taken during previous wars.

In an interview with the BBC, the Dalai Lama said the selective nature of the bombing, the precautions taken to prevent civilian casualties and the dropping of food packages were signs of change.

...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1617475.stm

;) He could claim to be anything. He's definitely on the side of the rulers though.

http://populistindependent.virtual.vps-host.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=11480&highlight=dalai+lama&sid=3ed68cba15cffe9241353dcc3074ad96#11480

He's also socially very conservative (so barely even counts as cultural "liberal" even by today's muddled stances).

His statement on Marxism is kind of a dog's breakfast:

[div class="excerpt"]
Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilisation of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes—that is, the majority—as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope Benedict XVI also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism (though disapproving of it on the whole).

As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers' International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.

I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion. Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is not much left to offer the people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. I think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion. The principal disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the detriment of compassion.

The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.[45]
[/quote]


So a good Buddhist-Marxist makes nice with the ruling class or the workers suffer? Yoiks!

in order to maintain a good grip on capitalist butt-cheeks. Chlamor said "jerk of epic proportions" - says it all...

1) He was a CIA tool...

2) He is Asshole #10

http://populistindependent.virtual.vps-host.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=386&hilit=dalai

3) He is Chlamor's neighbor.

http://populistindependent.virtual.vps-host.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=606&hilit=dalai

Even more... I kinda get conventional stupid religions which weigh on the brain. They are the superstitious hand of "tradition" reaching out from history and interwoven with "family" and "roots" and the rest...

But, new-ass religions of "choice"? Fuck me. "I don't have enough dumb fantasies in my life so I have initiated a worldwide search to fill the void..."

Really?

It literally screams "philistine" to me.

But, maybe I lack enlightenment.

I do know that "religion", chosen on the basis of "preference" is an oxymoron of the worst type. Read Aquinas... If it ain't in the world of God, prove it. If it is in the World of God, then it is based on "Faith" (metaphysics). Fuck your "preference", either way.

He's really shameless!

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56R5ZD20090728

Dalai Lama says capitalism can learn from Buddhism

[div class="excerpt"]
(Reuters) - The Dalai Lama may not be the first person who comes to mind for business advice but, as the Buddhist monk wrote in his new book, capitalism can profit from Buddhism's principles and values.

In "The Leader's Way," published this month by Broadway Books, the spiritual leader of Tibet wrote that both business and Buddhism attach importance to happiness and making the right decisions, and a company without "happy employees, customers and shareholders will ultimately fail."

Citing Buddhist basics such as good intentions, a calm mind free of negative thoughts and a realization that nothing is permanent, the Dalai Lama and co-author Laurens van den Muyzenberg tackle timely issues such as corporate compensation, malfeasance and the collapse of the subprime mortgage market.

The Dalai Lama has lived in exile in India since fleeing a failed uprising against Chinese rule in 1959. He was awarded the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize.

Inclined toward socialism, the Dalai Lama wrote that his understanding of communism came through meetings with the late Chinese leader Mao Tse-tung. His admiration of Mao ended, he said, when Mao compared religion to "a poison."

"I have come to put my faith in the free-market system.... The fact that it allows for freedom and diversity of thought and religion has convinced me that it is the one we should be working from," he wrote.

The Dalai Lama is a well-known advocate for religious freedom and autonomy for Tibet, putting him at odds with China, which accuses him of seeking independence for Tibetans and stoking unrest.

AN "UNLIKELY PAIRING"

The book, subtitled "The Art of Making the Right Decisions in Our Careers, Our Companies, and the World at Large," emerged out of meetings between van den Muyzenberg, an international management consultant, and the Dalai Lama from 1991 to 2000.

The two discussed what seemed "an unlikely pairing" of business and Buddhism, van den Muyzenberg wrote.

"When I started this project, I was not sure that companies could act in such a way that they could deserve a thoroughly good reputation. Now I am convinced that they can," the Dalai Lama wrote.

Profit, for example, is "a fine aim," but not the main role of business, which is "to make a contribution to the well-being of society at large," he wrote.

"The true value of a business is not the sum of its facilities and its employees and its financial resources; the value resides in the relationships among the people within it and with the many stakeholders outside it," he added.

For business leaders, the authors advocate meditation, noting opportunities to do so while in airports or taxis.

But the book is not intended to convert readers to Buddhism, the Dalai Lama noted.

"We wanted the book to be of practical use and to help business people make better decisions," he wrote.[/quote]

Such garbage.

to share...thanks...

and rational. Undoubtably a result of the infection of the Greeks. Educated Romans viewed religion as a social, not metaphysical thing from late Republic until the decline of Empire, when superstition regained the upper hand. Hmmmm....

worship - religions were just falderol. Still are...

particularly during the period mentioned, when the personified gods were regarded as allegorical at best. I doubt if too many were full bore materialists other than philosophers but still an improvement over praying to statues. Interesting book on the topic:

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300080773

Interesting idea this guy floats: that Diocletian's Reform, by quadrupling the size of the Imperial government spread the intellectual capacity of the ruling and suckfish classes too thin, leading to a bunch of superstitious dingbats, both Christian and pagan, becoming administrators, stupefying public discourse, such as it was. The materialists ideas of the Greeks were forgotten as the pagans reverted to intellectual barbarism.

eventually fall apart from the thinning, fraying fabric of their own societies...

Now I'm not an expert on how chemical processes work, but sometimes the reaction happens by itself slowly and sometimes it wouldn't happen at all. But the analogy stands either way I think -- we're not trying to "be the change" but we sure as hell are trying to perpetuate and speed it up.

class will become nazis if they think the commies don't like god? I don't even know what that means...

Some sensor on the crank case of my car died yesterday and prevented the motor from turning over so I had to get towed 60 miles.

The driver was an ex-Marine who was in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf war. It was an intereting conversation to say the least.

He wasn't a labor activist per se but he was constantly badgering his employer(s) by calling the NLRB, labor lawyers, and so on.

Meanwhile, he said the reason he left the Marines was because after his first child was born he couldn't look at the world the same way anymore because he'd developed a conscience.

He was part of the forward team that deployed the laste tagging systems that synched with the missiles and bombs for targeting. He said he blew alot of shit up and was still stoked on Reagan for making "our military what its supposed to be".

Nope, God's got nuthin' to do with nuthin'..(the Bastard ;))

the opposite sides of the same coin (I even used it once, in a way, to try and win an argument - didn't work, never does). It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the make-up of the two groups and what they essentially stand for, I think. I think it is a waste of time, but it is persistent...

Seeing how the Executive Branch has been ratcheting up it's implied prerogatives and rule by fiat I don't see how that should bother them too much nowadays.

send the Libertarians running for the exits. Heh, heh - good times...good times...

It was just a play on words.

But I could see a rightest, jack leg preacher with Nazi tendencies taking control of any worker's uprising against CONDITIONS and turning it into something that I don't want it to be simply by using God. Or at least splitting a movement using God.

I've never felt the need to give the system of capitalism any credence ethically, morally, or even spiritually. To me, it's evil in an almost biblical sense being as it relies on greed, self aggandizement, and a TOTAL disregard of your fellow humans. That would be evil in ANY spiritual or religious tradition, as well as in a totally materialistic context.

As far as I can discern, you are making zero sense. I just have nothing to add...

It was exactly the Romans who I was thinking about, and who collected "religions" the same way that British tourists collect souvenirs. 'Course, they did this because they didn't really believe in "religion".

The definitive critique, though, is pure Catholicism: Aquinas, although sometimes he is standing on his head.

How can anything be known if physics and metaphysics are interwoven? They cannot. There must be a complete separation into the world of man and the world of god; the world of natural law and that of divine law.

Alright then, how is the world of god revealed? Not by logic or emotion or preference but by "faith" alone.

But Aquinas doesn't just stop at this neat trick. He goes much farther by begging the question of where "faith stops". The problem is that if you believe in anything outside of the proofs of man, how can you not believe everything? That is a very serious problem because if metaphysics is not "souvenir hunting", then it is religious doctrine defined by its exclusion of all other such doctrine. Religion is exclusive faith by any definition and human wants, desires, etc. can never enter into it.

For all his weaving, Aquinas actually defines it by tradition and obligation - an exact description of religion as it actually existed in his time...

... or "social" as the very perceptive Mr. Pig had it.

http://godzdogz.op.org/uploaded_images/thomas_aquinas-719213.jpg

The alternative is plastic bags, sneakers, and purple blankets.

input. It was pretty much what I expected, but much appreciated.

I guess what I wanted to get feedback about was the perspective that I come from on this issue. I see this struggle as not only a class war, but also as a HOLY war. I want to drive a stake through the heart of the capitalist system, not only to improve the lot of 98+% of the population of the world, but also to rid the world of an Evil. And that is with a CAPITAL "E".

Thanks again.